MightyMouse

Well, you must not travel much. It is a lot better than it was before.

"Suddenly Upset" works. Because we were "suddenly upset" after the trade center attacks, we know have much safer air travel. DO you think it is much safer or do you feel that it is no better than it was before?

Do you mean to say that we should do nothing or that we should have a better govt in place to help with some of the issues you listed above?

You need to learn if you have what it takes to be a trader. You don't need to learn that in a class. You need to be able to finance yourself for periods of time without income. Can you do that? If no, then you are out. If so, how long? If not too long, then you are out. Have you ever traded anything before? Have you ever run a business? Have you ever dealt with profits and losses? Do you know how to make money? If you have not done any of these, why would you think you would succeed at trading? Try to cut through the fantasy of only having good years and being a trading rock-star and consider the other possibilities that can occur when trading. If you still want to trade, then read a lot of the info here and elsewhere and learn from the experience of others. Save your money

The murder rate in 2002 among males in the US was 8.8 per 100,000. The NRA and NRA supporters will sell you the line that that number is not impacted by guns because "guns don't kill, people kill." So, removing guns, according to the NRA, would more likely increase that number of male homicides per 100,000 people because a lot of the victims would have no means of protecting themselves. The driver of these numbers is the "Bad Guy" they are the ones who do the killing and will kill no matter what. The don't need guns. They will use a hammer, a bat, a knife, a club, etc. So following the NRA's logic, you might expect that if you grouped together a lot of bad guys and made them live in the same location, and began collecting stats, that that they would be more likely to kill each other with or without guns since they are bad guys who have a very high propensity to commit murder. I would expect that the homicide rate among the males in this community to be a lot higher than the male homicide rate of 8,8 for males and 6.1 per 100,000 overall that is experienced in the general population in 2002. The world would be a better place right? According to the NRA if we ship the bad guys off somewhere (Send them to Australia again?) and we could experience a utopian society void of bad guys. It wouldn't matter if we had a right to bear arms because we removed the real problem; the bad guy who pulls the trigger and would kill with or without a gun. The US has, indirectly, conducted this experiment and collected stats. The community that these "bad guys" live in is the US Prison System. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has collected data on prison crime for decades. The most recent data I could find was for 2002. The prison homicide rate in 2002 was 4 per 100,000. The homicide rate in prisons had been trending down just as it has in the general population since 1980. It struck me as odd that the homicide rate in prisons, 4 per 100k, is about 30% less than it is out of prison, 6.1 per 100k or put another way, we stand a 150% higher chance of being murdered out of prison than we do if we were in prison ( much higher if you are male). Prisons hold bad guys. A lot of these guys are already there for murder. A lot are there for other violent crimes. Yet, the murder rate is lower than the murder rate in the non prison population. These guys are safer in prison than we are out of prison. Is that odd? What could be the reason? Simple, there are no guns allowed in prison. A lack of guns make committing murder a lot harder even for the bad guys.Of course the NRA will attempt to shamelessly walk you down an illogical path: Prisoners are actually correct. They are all innocent and shouldn't be there in the first place. Prisoners practice professional courtesy. They only victimize non-prisoners and there are no non-prisoners in prison. Women are the problem. There are no women in male prisons so there is no need to commit murder. A criminal is immediately rehabilitated when he enters the prison system and no longer wants to commit murder. Any other silly NRA statement The experiment that can't be conducted but would have very interesting results is to find out what would happen if we added guns to the prison system. According to the NRA, guns are not the problem. According to NRA logic the homicide rate in prisons would stay the same or even decrease since these guys can now defend themselves and guns don't kill people. I don't think it is a stretch of imagination to think that adding guns to the prison population would be the quickest way of reducing the number of existing inmates. The homicide rate would simply soar. I think we can we say that a gun makes a bad guy worse. But, can we say that guns can turn a good guy into a bad guy? Again, I find it odd that a free, law abiding, male in the US is more likely to be murdered than a criminal in the prison system. Your best bet, to prevent your own murder from occurring, is to commit a crime and stay in prison. The best way to prevent your own homicide by a gun is to get rid of your gun since you are 2.7 times (I rounded down to 2.5 previously) more likely to be killed by a gun if you own a gun.Odd? The main difference? Availability of guns. When you add guns to any system you increase the rate of death. It is the very simply hypothesis I have held throughout this thread. If we would like to reduce the number of deaths outside of the prison population, then we need better control of guns. It is guns that turn good guys into bad guys. Profits be damned. It is no wonder that the NRA fought to stop research involving violence.

John, There was a thread that dealt with the issue of vendors and the outcome was the "C" on their chest unlike the Nuremberg laws in NAZI Germany, but the rule at least helps a member identify the vendor and it is up to you to decide the good or bad intent of the vendor. Most on here get grilled pretty well and you can find plenty info if you choose. MM

I call him a pussy because he ranted about people who would not join him in his war against foes of the second amendment; but, he folded like a clam when he came under pressure, recanting his statement saying he was sorry and that he was angry. Pussy for backing down.

Whoever supports the NRA is who.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k_C9QJ41Jx0 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI]Pack Your Bags Part 2 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5kuOMIVts]Pack Your Bags Part 3 - YouTube[/ame] He is the quintessential gun nut. And, he is a pussy. So much for diehard support of the second amendment. It appears that the fear of butt cheek violation in prison will change anyone's tune. You can't bring your gun to prison.

It really is that simple.

Original Study MMS: Error Condensed version with criticisms A gun in the home increases personal safety The NRA and its lobbying to block violence research Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC. - Slate Magazine NRA's Courageous Stance: Arm Schools, Silence Research - Forbes This is the organization you support. If I supported an organization so vehemently, I would want to know as much about its motives as I could.

To be clear: One is +- 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun if he owns a gun. I am not stating that he is 250% more likely to be murdered if he owns a gun. Big difference between the 2 statements

Wow! That is the gun nut work book! Awesome. It should come with tear out pictures that the gun nuts can color with crayons.

It was an interesting read until I got to the "birther" part of the article. Obama is a US citizen. He may have indicated otherwise for the benefit of financial aid here or abroad, but that doesn't change his citizenship, nor is it a crime that negates his ability to govern no more than a dui 40 years prior negated Bush's ability to govern now. Incidentally, Cheney had 2 dui's. I now become suspicious that vieira is on the NRA payroll.

I wouldn't arm myself if she was the boogie woman. Shit you want that coming over in the middle if the night. " Honey, Kids, quickly, leave the house and stay away. The boogie woman is coming. I need to deal with the boogie woman alone".

This is the research that made Kates famous. It is his, and, hence, the NRA's, interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Foreign nationals might appreciate this. American's know it all so they don't have to read it. HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund hosted the Next Generation RKBA Scholars Seminar in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 7, and 8, 2012. Twenty-five select scholars heard, among others, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert Cottrol, Professor Nicholas Johnson, Professor Joyce Malcolm, Dr. Stephen Halbrook, and Don Kates. I won't bore you with the hundreds of other references that I could locate about Don and the NRA. I am sure that if I tried hard enough I could match Kate's work and come up with BS research if I were funded by the NRA to do so. You want to believe and therefore you do.

Mitsubishi, what timeframe are your trading this on?

If will always be difficult to explain to a gun lover that guns are dangerous. Guns do lead to people getting shot and that less guns does equal less gun violence and gun murder. Something in your mind prevents you from understanding the intuitive aspect of such a simple thing. I suppose if I wanted that badly for something to be false, then i too would be blinded, looking for anything no matter how ridicules to support my point of view. hopefully, you never have to learn how dangerous a gun can be. Tighter gun controls will certainly lead to less gun murder/ 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? A boogie man or woman doesn't exist in my life so I can't possibly tell you what it is.

Vigilantism is maybe a solution for a 3rd world country, but not a real solution for any municipality in the US. In the case of Chicago, the gun bans will work over time. It is naive to think that things would change quickly with a gun ban. In time the gun ban will work like a charm as it has in other metropolitan areas. Yes, lowing the supply of guns will reduce the number of violent crimes committed with guns. Bus drivers get paid 10 an hour to drive busses. What do you think an armed bus driver would cost and who do you think would pay for it? Once again you display your thirst for large government. AKA socialistic beliefs. And, like most conservatives who are really socialists, it is OK for the govt to spend money if it is on programs they want. The times you describe are probably times in other 3rd world countries. Not the case in the USA. I do not see us heading in the same direction as Honduras. At the same time it would be difficult to convince a teen in Afghanistan that there is more to life than war since they have lived their entire life during war.

Right, it is a great case for not trying to do anything too. Right? Since we can't stop all mass shootings we shouldn't bother to try to stop any of them. Throughout this thread I have learned how to think like a gun nut. I feel conservative now.

Other than the potential psychological difficulties that may occur when adding size on the next trade, the market does not react the same toward your entry when you enter with 10, 100 or 2. As an example, I have entered with a market order with one contract and get a reasonable amount of slippage; typically, the order price or 1 tick maybe. But, with 10 contracts, in this particular market, I received a range of as much as 8 ticks at times. Even though 10 contracts doesn't sound or seem like much, it is enough to tremendously change the expected outcome. Of course, there will be variances based on liquidity. The point is that adding size to make more money isn't as easy as just being able to handle it psychologically.

The hypocrisy is that those actors take parts in violent moves, yet they cry mercy afterwards.

It seems like you understand his point of view.

I agree with you on the new law. The law is no deterrent for someone on a death wish. Pretty much nothing is a deterrent when someone is prepared to die. Removing available guns from the system would help somewhat, making it more difficult to obtain guns by people on a death wish. On a death wish, we can assume that the individual would find alternatives of which the options are endless. A lot of your posts have an underlying tone of euphoric invincibility; that when you own or carry a gun, you are invincible to being killed by a gun because you have one. As if a gun will keep you from getting killed or shot. If 2 people meet with guns and a shot is fired, then someone likely gets shot. In your mind it is never you. An armed bus driver would certainly have a better chance of defending himself, but if the perp knew he was armed, then all it meant was that the perp had to draw and shoot quickly before the bus driver had a chance. Keep in mind, the perp is on a death wish Armed or not, the bus driver would likely end up dead anyway. Personally, I wouldn't let my child get onto a bus that had a $10 an hour employee who is made to carry a gun. I suspect that the armed bus drivers would, from time to time, share the same euphoric feeling that you do when you hold a gun.