zdo

For this argument, there are a few insights to be gained from the available ‘controls’ on studies of prison populations that aren’t available as controls in ‘free’ populations, but whoever used the word “asinine” pretty much nailed it. ... cabins in the woods ... prisons ... row houses ... whatever... if members (randomly) show up in the groups who will go 'over the line' then violence will go up... weapons or no weapons. Also, in contrast to the 'outside', the murder rate in prisons is influenced heavily by the choices of prison leadership – much more than the ‘controls’ imposed by the warden and guards and infrastructure…

"controlling" ? "not done" ? ... "done" On the surface of this post the apparent assumption is 'they' did something, anything to "control violence" which caused lower violence = hubris + more argumentum ad populum et ad nauseam ...meanwhile the number of illegal guns is as high as ever... 'Case in point NYC' - more likely the violent aspects of the culture in NYC changed on their own... not because of tough mayors or any of the other typical exciting stories told about how things change...

Not having an answer is ok … all along, this issue is far far more about ‘people control’ than about ‘gun control’.

It only appears to be better. You are billed to make you feel more secure, but you really aren't more secure... here we go again ... plus, the terrors and horrors can be easily rained down via other means... just stick around ... and the DHS will turn out to be much worse than just a total waste... back on topic... How far into the total gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths? A reduction of ?? %

Once out of the box… Once a technology is out of the box - it is out of the box. Once a high utility technology is out of the box, ‘legal’ controls will be largely neutralized. Producers will find a way to produce it. Consumers will find a way to procure it. (… and meanwhile, all the ‘legal’ controls are usually driven by other, less honorable, agendas than those stated.) Technologies rise and fall/ are replaced on their own. Once a technology is out of the box , manipping supply and demand, even taxing flow, is a fools game ultimately. Guns are powerful tools that can be used for good and evil, and until replaced by better personal weapons, the technology is out of the box… If supply is interrupted, substitutions will be found and applied. If high capac. magazines become ‘illegal’, a local machinist can fix that easily… without a printer… Internal combustion tech is out of the box… won’t be replaced until it is replaced… All sorts of drugs formulas - from brewing beer to making meth, etc - are out of the box and won’t go back in the box. If supply or ingredient supply is interrupted, substitutions will be found and applied… Remote wireless surveillance cameras are out of the box… Atomic weapon technologies are out of the box… hm some ‘gun control’ parallels at the sovereign level… and [snic] we should ‘disarm’ all our nukes now asap… all weapons really are pretty ugly, aren’t they ? …and now, drones are out of the box… To Drone or to Disdrone do you have a grone yet? 5 Homeland Security 'Bots Coming to Spy on You (If They Aren't Already) | Danger Room | Wired.com

It is no better than it was before. It would be just as easy now to create even more terror and even more deaths by suicide planes as it was pre 911

Both. I’m saying the better government that would “help” with this and other “issues” used as examples is simply unattainable at the this point… unrealistic… such 'programs' and interventions have been tried, failed, same tried again with 'better' funding, failed, new(same old) programs, failed… degrading rapidly now… not getting better at it... It’s just like this unrealistic ‘cause’ you’re hooked on…how much we would we have to “better” government to get any real traction is a lot like - How far into the gun supply would we have to go before it started making an impact on your gun deaths? A reduction of ?? %. These studies (that one side will vehemently resist) will not be effective … wasting our money on stats or whatever - anything the govt would “do” on this or the other issues would be geometrically LESS effective than ANYTHING you might do... which would also be very ineffective - unless you are working very locally, very diligently, very personally with the ‘at risks’ you drive by every day... instead of staying “suddenly upset” in your Lanza projections. Do what you will on this issue. Just don’t expect me to want to help pay for fake studies – for either ‘side’ of this arming issue.

Breaking News! Gun violence problem has now been solved Obama gun control executive orders call for CDC gun violence research, 17 years after 1996 NRA-supported freeze. Combined with their record in ending poverty, improving education, the war on drugs, curing disease, and ... the list of their accomplishments goes on and on... this puts the nail in the coffin of any remaining 'stupid' government talk

Government Research – beyond oxymoron Has it recurred to anyone there might have been legitimate reasons to “block” that research? Gov’t funded, clearly biased from the start, skewed testing and metrics already designed, plans already in place for how to massage the data to ‘create’ stats, without regard for all the variables not controlled for… all to get close to the result the ‘senator’ was looking for to begin with. Then after all that grant money is spent, which is never enough somehow – forcing them to take shortcuts, etc. , false correlations will trotted out to be used to support false premises and fake causations. All done, ostensibly, to control processes that don’t have a chance in hades of being controlled. “Let’s Pretend…” = more gov’t waste. Government research is much worse than an oxymoron. Please don’t tell anyone because I don’t want to be put off the drone list, but I would hope the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence could lease some members of congress to block similar government ‘research’ if it was blindingly clear the agenda and ends were pro gun lies…

Tams, ... we can't read your posts ... you only post pictures Let's associate some more you get associated with MM because you lik all his posts.

This 'association' game is one we all need to get good at. It is so supportive of getting at the real issues. ... and coordinates so well with LUMPING, etc. So... For TheDude, SunTrader, Tams, MightyMouse and other ‘to Disarms’, here’s a guy who will stand with you http://moonbattery.com/?p=25224 and I understand that Dormer guy is in the ‘to Disarms’ tank with you too. Hooray!

Who is this "you" in this sentence?

... and it's been good to see that you post matching 250 + word expositions everytime the gun haters whip out their lies, dam lies and statistics. ... very helpful with "good to keep a balanced argument."

Treating yourself like a statistic is the great way to end up being one. I argue that instead of approaching "COMPLETE ANSWER" to murders, instead of being a major factor, guns are hardly a factor at all. Murder events and ‘stats’ rise and fall on their own. ... with or without guns ...somewhat like in wars, etc. K.Ferdinand, the (his) story’s precipitating events are not the REAL precipitating events... False narratives repeated often enough may become accepted as truths... but they are still false. lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250 http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

re "boogie man" If you can't tell me what it is, then how can you possibly attribute it others? re "A person who owns a gun is 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun than by any other means. Does that sound to you like you are safer with a gun?" Don B. Kates [underlining at end mine] MM, you should drop what you're doing and start up the MightyMouse Labeling Machine, Inc. You would succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I bet the first test of your first prototype would output a label that says "gun lover"... :helloooo: as I've said multiple times in here, I don't like guns at all. Yet you keep running around trying to stick that label on me. ...

There's a red herring fight in the Traders Lounge! :rofl: Looks like it's time to get word twist ridiculous again - like - the alcohol bans worked "over time" like - the marijuana bans "will work over time" and like - washington dc's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. and - we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a "boogie man" is paranoid. (MM, still waiting for correct definition of 'boogie man' btw) and - the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. and - an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you and - guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. like - police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition. like - we should tighten supply and drive costs up by banning "saturday night specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. like - private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. like - "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. like - the NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity. like - guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapons are removed. and - the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which had been started significantly declining in 1991. Here we go with this odd little pattern again - Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." Some day it may click for you - the 'stats' on violent crimes committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply" mass atrocicities committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply"

yep, and way back when, spirited drinks 'created' urban life and btw no killers drink wine or tea ie killers drink beer and coffee

“Nothing has changed.” SunTrader “That’s right. This government will never and would never attack its own people” TheDude “If all the guns were taken, the public would have nothing to worry about. ” Tams adds. “… all structures are fragile.” Nassim Taleb “What do you mean, Nassim? I thought you were anti-gun…” SunTrader The White House is ?Judge, Jury and Executioner? of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks - Washington's Blog [Video] Police Shoot Man 3 Times Immediately Upon Entering House: Hayden?s Note & the Failed War on Drugs | Truth is Treason

SIUYA is a word twister!:rofl: SIUYA is a word twister:rofl: Dude, I said it sums up this Thread. I didn't say it sums up the "debate" ... ... such as ?

“Too honest?” :wheresthatfalldownrolloverlaughingsmiley: poignant thing is - this pretty much sums up whole this thread in about 1 minute [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWax4i1O18s&feature=player_embedded]Caught On Camera ~ Joe Biden Admits Gun Control Will Not Stop Mass Shootings Or Save Lives - YouTube[/ame]

Abe Says Fears Of Hyperinflation Are "Mostly" Unfounded As He Urges Companies To Hike Wages | Zero Hedge

Fwiw, I will be getting short USDJPY during this week and next (not heavily, but nonetheless, short… and btw, still holding EURJPY (and related) longs ... for now ) … it would be nice if I just knew why :rofl: :haha:Forum dedicated to fundamental outlook, intermarket analysis, and macro & micro analysis.

If you really care enough about this subject to dig further, here are some of my posts on this subject... and neighboring and adjacent posts by others in these threads are just as valuable as mine… … in no particular order… http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/3335-right-coach-mentor-7.html#post114701 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/4106-finding-mentor-course-things-look-out-5.html#post42170 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/psychology/11608-taking-blinders-off-trading-mind-19.html#post136737 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/futures-trading-laboratory/3619-how-much-would-you-pay-learn-2.html#post32448 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/beginners-forum/3335-right-coach-mentor.html#post29096 http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/futures-trading-laboratory/3619-how-much-would-you-pay-learn-2.html#post32435 hth

Reducing the “lethalness of criminals” is a quality aim that appeals to all of us (except maybe S&Mtrx ;) ) Vince50 Actually, that’s not really saying much – especially to this issue. Availability of anything is correlated to the quantity of its use. That can be generalized. But, in many of the to Disarms arguments ( and sometimes To Arms’ too ) we see 'availability' magically being spread to the qualities of use and then, with even more magic, on to a separate axis of ‘intentions’. Jumping axis then acting / arguing ‘as if’ we didn’t is faking it … let’s not let people get away with that on either side of this argument. Humans and individual variability in propensity to use force. Even if you did thousands of cabins with your scenarios, I hold that the important variable would not be the count and availability of lethal objects. The variable that would far overshadow supply of lethal objects would be the distribution / occurrence and variable severity of INDIVIDUALS who would readily resort to force that got dropped into these ‘cabins’. It is the counts/distributions of those who would go over the threshold in their propensity of using force to get what they want PLUS the count of those in the cabins who would resist the use of force over them that would be the extremely superior ‘predictor’ of “USE” of objects as weapons. This is just more of the accumulating pile of prepositions we’re subjected to in this thread – actually this whole forum - that simply don’t transfer to the real world. Misused statistics, alternated with inflammatory ‘reports’ of individual atrocious isolated events wheeled out in support, etc. etc. etc. don't get at the real issues and don’t describe or account for the ‘guitar cabins’ that happened to get members who would resort to violence. They also try to omit ‘via pretend scenarios’, how many guitars would get smashed over heads in perping and in self defense in the 'art supply cabins'. A few of us, at least, would hope that the available ‘art’ objects in those ‘cabins’ would be functionally ‘misused’ in self defense, lethally if necessary, to vanquish the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals who got dropped into that ‘cabin’ … even if it did shatter MM's already "suddenly upset" dreams and hopes for significantly fewer ‘incident reports’ and lower “USE” statistics from the ‘art supplies cabins’. So, using examples of utopia like isolated ‘cabins in the woods’ world where weapons are not ‘needed’, are only illustrative if you could possibly control for the ‘propensity to violence’ individuals. MM and those who lik his posts. are focused only on trying to control for access to ‘ready lethality’ instead of focusing on the realities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals. But, in reality, if you could set up a huge, significant sample of such 'cabins', here’s what you would end up with: In both the ‘lethal objects’ cabins and the ‘artsy’ cabins, the ones with quantities of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals will have more violent force episodes, and tragically, deaths AND the ones where those where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals win will continue to have more violence, and tragically, deaths AND the ones where the ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals are defeated/eliminated will revert to low violence and, thankfully, fewer tragic deaths. … really the only redeeming feature of these isolated ('prison'? / ) ‘cabin’ pretend world ‘examples’ is that they illustrate even less outside ‘intervention’ than is available in 20,000 + laws and in a 911 call with a 10 to 120 minute waiting period… Since they apparently feel helpless in controlling for the randomlike appearances of ‘propensity to violent force’ individuals that show up in (and in between) ‘cabins’ in the real world, MM and co. mistakenly thinks, and posts and posts and posts, that controlling for the lethality of objects will ‘do something, anything!’… while all along… By Far, the most effective way to reduce the “lethalness of criminals” is to increase the lethalness of their potential victims. Match criminals' threats as effectively / as closely as possible and their "USE" will go way down! It's not just you Vince. All of us have to be careful and not get sucked into the reactive brain games... especially when those games can be "USED", then denied with a simple " I never... " "The irony is, if you're willing to kill a perpetrator, you probably won't have to." Massad Ayoob

If I find time, I will find examples … For other readers, though… it appears you are most likely to harden and entrench your positions even more… Guns are lethal. Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) Sure it would make ‘sense’ – if it would work in the real world. You’re thinking it is possible to decrease their "lethalness". I don’t. You seem to be saying we can significantly decrease supply in the dark, unregulated market by decreasing supply in the regulated market… enough to move the dangerous criminals and ‘murder statistics’ significantly ... ( and btw, worldwide ‘murder statistics’ has very ‘iffy’ correlations with ‘supply’ (or ‘demand’) of lethal weapons ) As the article above points out – sometimes “force” takes the “reasoning”options off the table. To be ready for that, it’s actually better – one more time, in the real world for EVERYONE who chooses it, to be ready to match force with force... even in the 'modern' , urban, 'civil' world, MM... "Save a life, teach a woman to shoot." I acknowledge and accept the risks that someone may steal my weapons and use them with force over others or even kill someone else. If you cannot accept that risk, then by all means, stay Disarmed. First, I don't "equate" gun ownership with freedom. One aspect of 'liberty' is an inherent right to defense of family and self. "... shall not be infringed" was part of an experiment in rule of law... that experiment is over... for now. For you, MM, you can choose not to bring parity into any imposed force defense of your family and self, if you like... But when you start playing silly games with my choices and others' choices, let's get this straight! - "Molon labe!" It can’t boil down to that – because in the real world there is no way we could set up the situation where killing one person could assure the freedom of millions. Even as sharp as you are MM, any 'practical' attempts you could devise in your head to accomplish such would also carry high probabilities of backfiring bigtime... a risk you don't seem to want to acknowledge. ( ...and what happens to 'traders' who and 'systems' that don't acknowledge risks ??? :helloooo: ) Please boil it down some more… or maybe just move over to one of the other beakers on the heat … but stay away from the one that possibly has pesticides in it Interesting you keep wacking away at something I said about pesticides when discussing risks… instead of discussing the underlying assumptions I recently brought up that each of us seems to be carrying into this... or discussing… (however - for silliness and for the readers' sake - since you have started using the term repeatedly, if you have time you might define what you mean by "boogie man". Does a 'boogie man' have any superhuman, satanic powers, etc, etc ? thx.) "Those that give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." gun nutzy redneck, Benjamin Franklin … a man who for the most part CHOSE to walk about unarmed… while simultaneously staying real , in the ‘laws’, and in plain ole common sense for those who CHOSE to be able to defend themselves against “force”