MightyMouse

I really like Vectorvest as a stock selection tool. It puts all the important variables at your fingertips. It provides a decent framework for trading the wychoff method.

In the US? Yes.Anyone who wants to. Elsewhere? Not everywhere even if someone wants to. Not saying it is easy or fun.

There is nothing fair about life in the US. On the other hand, anyone can position themselves to be in the top 1%. You have to want badly to be there. Not shown in the video is how little it takes to be in top 1% of income earners. It's about $380k or so.

You are completely mistaken. Every post you have made is dealing with innocence. Specifically, the additional innocent lives that are lost directly by an overabundance of guns in either the hands of good guys or bad guys. Which is why your answer to each question is Yes!

I do believe I would use a gun. I am not too sure that many people would answer no to your question. Especially on a website. Are you properly trained to use a gun in the circumstances you describe? If the assailant is holding a knife or piece of cut glass to your child's throat and demands that you drop the gun, do you shoot or drop it?

The more arms, the more death. Should an innocent life be taken to spare many? Your answer is yes. Should the lives of many innocent people be taken to spare a few? Again, your answer is yes. Think it through. You probably don't like the way these feel, sound, or look. Get used to the suit. You'll wear it for as long as you stay.

I think it is you projecting that if you do not have a gun you do not have protection. I will project that you have learned this flawed thought from your flawed bible/screenplay. My family is protected when I am there or not.

That is exactly the fear that the gun advocates want you to possess. It makes it easier to sell guns. It also has close to nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, but your god is a movie star so your bible is just another screenplay that you have learned line by line. As if there were no other way to take down an intruder than with a gun? If the intruder has a gun? then what? if the intruder is holding the gun or a knife to your wife's or child's head then what? A gun might make you feel good as long as an intruder doesn't appear, but if he appears and he has a gun, you got a mess especially if he knows you have a gun. At this instance, I am not saying that it is not worth it to have a gun, but a gun doesn't really provide the security that you hoped for by possessing a gun. Your protection comes at a very large cost.

It's a shame. Sometimes you have to make choices. Do you get meds for a hard on or do you forego the hard on and maintain a decent blood pressure level? Personally, If I had a hard on for 4 hours, I would call everyone, but my doctor would probably be the last one on the list. I'll change gods if my god is the same god as yours. Mine does not advocate the right to have weapons. In fact, quite the opposite. I think your god might be Charlton Hesston. Like I said, too many movies

Your need for guns is probably a result of you watching too many scary movies. Go see a psychiatrist, your need for a gun will miraculously go away.

You are 2.7 times more likely to die by a gun if you own a gun than if you don't own a gun. Oddly, you protection comes at a cost.; an increased chance of dying.

I think you are hard pressed to suggest that the UK has a gun homicide issue with tough gun laws. If you want to split hairs over numbers which might be a time period reporting issue, so be it. It is lower, it is lower, it is lower no matter which way you look at it. It remains that a male in the United States is safer from homicide, gun or otherwise, in prison than not in prison. Yes, a victory for the constitution. Smoking does not cause cancer.

Well it looks like the proposals for gun control are all weak and, therefore, worthless. The US may have won back the right to fund research, but that too is a waste since common knowledge is that a gun is dangerous. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our representative form of government.

The changes were for multiple reasons. The changes occurred across the country in other large cities during that time too. David Dinkins, knowing that he would be running against Guilianni, who had a reputation of being a tough crime fighter, increased the ranks of the police force. Over time, the added protection paid off. Guilianni came to office and he employed the "broken window" theory. Simply it is based on the idea that 80% of crime is committed by 20% of the people. It was an effective approach which helped too. The US economy had been improving for a period which generally means that there is less reason to steal. At the same time a tough gun policy was enforced. Unconventionally, the author of Freakonomics makes a really good case that the overall drop in the crime rates was due to roe v wade. R v W had the impact of removing unwanted children from our planet. The argument is, loosely, that unwanted children are generally the children of poor people who would have a baby because they couldn't afford the procedure. Wealthy people could still afford to have abortions so the truly unwanted wealthy children would be disposed of in spite of abortion being illegal prior to R v W. 18 or so years after R v W the crime rate started dropping. Go figure. Freakonomics is a good read if anyone has not read it. I am only giving you a part of the story. Read it if you want to argue with me.

They will send one and then another, and another, and another, and another, and another...

I don't know of any simple or easy markets. Anything is easy or simple when it works out in your favor. So maybe you are confusing easy or simple with lucky. Sure, the game is different when there is less leverage involved. But, the game is never easy or simple. I am positive it doesn't become hard and complex only when I enter a trade.

If you don't mind, please list which proposed policy(ies) you would like me to share my opinion on.

Not projecting; instead, just having a good time. I thought it funny to envision tattooed skin heads singing choral tunes. This may account for some of the reason why the homicide rate is low, but I doubt that it is all the reason. It sounds like you agree that weapon control works in prison. Perhaps tighter supply and control of supply would work outside of prison too. I might have argued against some of the reasons for you to want a gun, but I never once said that I want to take your gun away. If you are a nut, then sure I would want your gun taken away. This is a thread on arming or disarming. I am not thinking about how many different things happen to people. Yes I was stirred to action by Sandyhook.

... What does good leadership do? Do they have chorus class on Wednesday, hump day, to help with the monotony of prison life so that they don't think about killing each other? Would chorus on Wednesdays for the non prison population prevent people from killing each other too? It is simply thick headed abstinence to omit the idea that there are fewer murders because there are fewer guns and other weapons. Its a rather simple idea. But, it is not simple for someone to admit if he or she has something to lose by admitting that fewer weapons is a major part of the reason. It remains that prisoners have a smaller chance of being murdered than non prisoners. Yes, there are more controls in prison and one of the controls is that weapons are not allowed. Most intentional homicides are committed with firearms. It is no stretch of the imagination for rational individuals to conclude that the availability of guns increases the possibility of homicide. It is comical to watch people try to deny the facts.

Its hard for you or someone who is a gun advocate to state that if prisoners where given guns that they would annihilate each other and everything around them because guns make doing that simple and easy even if they had 23 hour lock down. But, they can't do that now because they don't have guns. It was asinine because the argument doesn't support your view of guns? Most likely. It is an odd argument, no doubt, but what remains is that a white or black male has less of a chance of being killed in prison than a white or black male who is not in prison. It is also very interesting how there are no guns in prison. I would expect that with such a large grouping of bad guys, many of whom are murderers, that the murder rate would be a lot higher than the murder rate of the population at large.

What if under the same guarded conditions, we gave them guns? Would the murder rate go down or up? And as per your friend's brother, these guys don't give a fuck. They have plenty of time to kill each other in prison if they want to. The murder rate was a lot higher pre-1980. I do not know why, just that it was.

I prefer dark haired women of European decent.

I think if she really, really loved him she would have branded his name on her face instead of just a tattoo.

I am not surprised by your response. Would you care to elaborate on how air travel is not safer? The reasons behind your responses are what make this thread worthwhile for me.

1 gun would make a difference. A very small difference, but a difference nonetheless. As an example: if I have a gun in my home, there is a minor chance that the gun gets stolen and used. If I remove that gun, then the minor chance of the gun being stolen and used is gone. If everyone who didn't want their guns anymore simply disposed of them properly, then that would have an impact. I have no data, but I am certain that unwanted guns end up as gun supply for criminals to do damage with. You are really asking me a question that I do not have an answer.