MightyMouse

A better stat would be the number of accidental deaths from hammers as compared to the accidental shootings by guns. Most hammer deaths are intentional. Most deaths by guns are accidental. You'll have a tough time computing this one since it almost sounds like I am agreeing with you.

Keep the ideas rolling. Your forefathers want it that way.

I scale out some to remove some of the psychological pressure.

I'll buy another one here. Technically, the trade is still valid.

The fed "lobbied" for banks to continue to be able to trade in the OTC markets when Dodd-Frank was being drafted. The fed wants banks to remain competitive and feels that banks need the profits attained from the otc markets to be competitive in the global market place. The Fed feels that its tools are enough to manage future bubbles: " Understandably, as a society, we would like to find ways to mitigate the potential instabilities associated with asset-price booms and busts. Monetary policy is not a useful tool for achieving this objective, however. Even putting aside the great difficulty of identifying bubbles in asset prices, monetary policy cannot be directed finely enough to guide asset prices without risking severe collateral damage to the economy. A far better approach, I believe, is to use micro-level policies to reduce the incidence of bubbles and to protect the financial system against their effects. I have already mentioned a variety of possible measures, including supervisory action to ensure capital adequacy in the banking system, stress-testing of portfolios, increased transparency in accounting and disclosure practices, improved financial literacy, greater care in the process of financial liberalization, and a willingness to play the role of lender of last resort when needed. Although eliminating volatility from the economy and the financial markets will never be possible, we should be able to moderate it without sacrificing the enormous strengths of our free-market system. "

You miss the point. I don't have guns in my house because I am afraid of an accident occurring. If I had a gun in my house that was easily accessible, I would choose the gun over the club. But, since I would have guns stored away, it would be faster and simpler for me to grab a club than to get the key to unlock the cabinet to get the gun. And if someone takes your car and kills someone in some states you are responsible even if you are not driving and even if you did not give permission to the driver. More guns = more death. I think that only a few will argue against that. You turn it into a liberal conservative issue. Doing so is generally the frustrated response of a conservative or a liberal who has no facts.

Lot's of people sit idly while their spouse or girl friend gets raped. They could fight to the death but don't because they are afraid. So, if someone is afraid to die trying to protect their spouse, why wouldn't they be afraid to shoot back if they had a gun? Not everyone has the guts to shoot someone even in self defense. Don't kid yourself just because you think you can.

The Basics Of Texas Gun Laws Q: How long is the waiting period to buy a Handgun / Shotgun / Rifle in Texas? A: There is no waiting period for purchasing a firearm in the state of Texas. Q: I just moved to Texas, do I have to register my firearms? A: No, there is no state registration of firearms. Q: I just inherited / bought a gun from someone in Texas, do I need to transfer the gun to my name? A: No, there is no state registration of firearms, thus there is no requirement transfer the firearm in your name. Q: What is required to purchase a firearm in the state of Texas? A: You will need a valid state-issued ID. Many FFLs will not sell to out-of-state residents. This is due to the FFL's requirement to uphold your resident state's gun laws, and the inherient complexity associated with many states. Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person? A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license. Q: Can I strap a gun on my hip in Texas? A: No, with some exceptions. Open carry is not legal in Texas, but you may open carry on your own property, in the commission of a sporting activity (competition, shooting ranges, etc.), and while engaged in hunting. Q: Can I carry a firearm in my vehicle? A: Yes. With the passage of the Motorist Protection Act you may now readibly carry handguns, loaded and within reach, so long as you conceal the firearm. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed and may be loaded and within reach. Q: Are machine guns / suppressors / short-barreled firearms, etc. legal in the state of Texas? A: Yes. All NFA rules apply. See this FAQ for more info regarding Class III / Title II items. Q: Are "assault weapons" banned in Texas? A: No. Texas abides by Federal law which at this time has no restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" such as semi-auto AR15, FAL, G3 / HK91 rifles. Q: Is there a limit on the number of rounds a magazine may hold? A: No. The only limit on magazines in Texas is the number of rounds you are physically able to cram into the thing and/or carry and/or afford. In a state with such lax gun laws, there is a very great likelihood that someone in that establishment had a gun.There is also the possibility that the someone with a gun was afraid to use it. Just because someone owns and or carries a gun, does not mean that he or she will be able to use it when the time comes.

I will agree that as a sane American citizen, I would like to have the option of owning a gun. Shooting is fun. I would never carry one for protection, and in my home I would sooner grab a bat, golf club, fireplace tool, hookeroon, or butcher knife if my alarm did not scare them away. A gun is too much of an accident waiting to happen to allow it to be readily available in a home with multiple inhabitants and visiting family, and or friends. If someone took your gun from your home and committed murder, you should be held responsible for allowing the gun to be made available. It it was steal-able, then it was not properly secured. The other aspect of gun possession is disposable. What is the proper way to dispose of guns? Sell them at a gun swap or gun show? To me that is akin to finding a good baby sitter at a pedophilia convention. If you have a gun that you want to sell or dispose of, then there should be strict channels of disposal to ensure that the gun does not end up in the wrong hands. Had Adam lanza's mother had the guns securely stored, there is a large chance that he would have carried out his crime with less force. Less force= less loss of life. There is also an outside chance that he just would have killed himself without disrupting the lives or 26 other families.

An employee's mother had some sort of bomb shelter in NY state where they all went to for the end of the world. She had stored supplies there to, I suppose, survive the end of the world. She had 100 pounds of tuna, antibiotics, and who knows what else. They have lots of guns. I didn't ask too many questions.

It is several posts now that you have mentioned manipulation of male genitalia as a means of correcting violent behavior. Far be it from me to question the origin of your fascination with the male sexual organ, but i do suspect that most of the mass shootings were conducted by right wing lunatics.

I am for more sex, more people, more tax payers. Open up the gates, let people who want to work in. I am against abortion. But you can abort your kid for all I care. If you don't want him or her, the @#$%^& if I do. Remove the minimum wage. Legalize all drugs. Get rid of patent and copyright. Let market be free once. Tighter gun control. Something like scoring a minimum sanity level on a myers briggs test to be allowed to continue to own a gun. New strict gun disposal laws. Cost savings and employment in 6 sentences. Have a safe NEW YEAR's eve and a good New Year

We all have things we do not like or enjoy. Enema comes to mind.

I am going to have sex today for the sake of virginity. It makes perfect sense on this thread.

Woman's right to vote. There were no militias. Black equal rights. There were no militias. Martin Luther King Can argue that the embargo against the south African apartheid govt worked. The reunification of East and West Germany in 1990. The independence of the former soviet states. All within the last 100 years and i would say that these are major changes that occurred. If you believe that violence is the only way, then it makes sense that you see no other solution than to use more guns. There are probably a lot more than I can think of without looking them up. Diplomacy does work from time to time. I am not sure of its record, but it does work. There is no quicker way to get a reaction than through the threat of taking life. However, the quickest way to get a reaction is never the shortest way to find a solution and never the least expensive way to bring about change.

Finding inexpensive solutions that preserve life are just @#$%^&* stupid aren't they? Putting a gun in the hands of everyone and continuing with our same drug policies are simply brilliant, right? Your solution harms the most people and costs the most. Conservative right? I stated earlier that I removed guns from my home when my first child was old enough to explore. The risk of injury to him or others was infinitely greater than the benefit of having them. I suppose it would be option i. I would crack his skull or die trying to crack his skull. As far as I know, skulls still do crack. You didn't have that option in your list. I suppose that most liberals like myself would do the same. In any event, I can no longer be engaged in the pointless mire or conservative vs liberal rhetoric. Apparently the preservation of life is liberal. It is foolish to me because you are both the same and somehow you gain benefit by name calling and labeling. It is their way of getting control of you to support their agenda. You are true to your team. Bravo! Meanwhile, I have a government in my country that is supporting business and those who plan to assist in the creation of jobs. I have taken advantage of it and intend to take advantage of it in 2013. I hope to nearly double my workforce and will take advantage of all the programs that are being offered to assist employers who are engaged in job creation. Are you aware that our government is offering that to those who are willing to participate in job creation? Has the group you support let you know that? Probably not because it is not part of their agenda to help you or to help our nation. Does that sound American to you? In sum, I will create revenue which will help provide assistance to you so you can live your life supporting expensive and foolish programs that allow you to play army without consideration of how it gets paid for. You should remove your Jesus above your bed and replace it with my picture and pray that people like me continue to exist so that you can spend money that you don't have. You are conservative.

You forgot the Kurds. They were armed. Did their guns do them any good when sadaam cooked them with chemical weapons? I am not sure, but did the guns also turn to carbon when the Japanese were carbonized when we dropped the A bomb on them? Hmmm Can someone tell that the glob of metal was a gun after it has been subjected to heat levels equivalent to the surface of the sun? Switzerland has a much lower poverty rate than we do. The also have universal healthcare which is socialistic. Additionally, they have different drug laws than we do. It isn't a good comparison. Let us duly note that Patuca inwardly admires the benefits of socialistic policy. He won't be able to admit it since he will be shunned by other gun toting motorcycle riding conservatives. Appreciating Socialistic policy is basically like admitting that you prefer men, Right? How are those Iraqi insurgents doing? I think they need one more gun each. That will help.

mexico is a drug issue. Organized crime will always have guns. adding guns to meixco with their drug issues will = more gun deaths. if you took the drug issues away from mexico, the homicide rate would drop. The guys that are shooting up schools and malls are not drug cartels. You are comparing apples and oranges. Most of what I am suggesting is pretty simple and follows intuitively from the data. You have an agenda and need to do things like tell half truths, compare guns to cars, quote out of context.

more guns = more deaths. It's a really simple thing to understand. If you gave every adult at least 1 gun, then rate of gun ownership would basically double. It is a safe assumption to say that the number of accidental shootings would double too. So, instead of about 600 accidental shootings a year we would have 1200. Make sense to sacrifice another 600 people to minimize the the casualties of a lunatic on a death wish? Go on and rant about liberal, leftist, whatever you want. Try to base your thoughts with facts. You'll see that your thoughts are simply an emotional response and not a workable solution for the long run.

If you buy into the NRA solution then you buy into larger government. If your solution involves only arming more civilians, then there are lots of unintended consequences that emerge such as lots more homicide and more accidental shootings. Mass shootings will either go up or stay the same because everyone has a gun. The incidence of mass shootings will likely mirror the suicide rate. We can assume that the shooter will not be able to kill as many people if other adults are armed, but they still will be able to kill. You won't stop them until after they start shooting. I suggest much much tighter gun possession laws and gun disposal laws. In nearly every instance of these shootings, the guns used were at some point purchased legally. If there was a law that made you, Patuca, responsible for the crimes your gun commits, then I would feel safe to say that your gun would not end up in the wrong hands since you would be a lot more careful about who you sold it too or if you left it out in the open to be stolen. I don't feel that it is necessary to remove the 2nd amendment, even though its value has diminished through time. I got hit when I broke major rules. Needless to say, I got hit a lot. I prepared myself for children who would be like me. I didn't get what I was waiting for. They do what they are told. There is a lot of yelling, but they do not break any major rules. I am not going to hit them for no reason. I didn't get hit for no reason. I believe that most criminals should be put in labor camps. Let them make gravel with sledgehammers. If they commit more crimes when released and have to go back in to crush stone again, then we know that they are truly stupid and not gaming the system for 3 square meals a day and bed. We need to focus on making money on every dollar we spend. There is lots of need for gravel. The only way i would feel satisfied with capitol punishment is if a family member of the victim were able to do the killing. I am not talking about letting his or her hand push the lever down, in some sort of symbolic gesture, to release the humane drugs to slowly subdue and kill the murderer. If someone killed someone in your family, may God forbid it from ever happening, would you feel satisfied if the murderer was safely put to sleep? Fuck that. I at least want screams and torture for a period of time that is at a minimum of what I estimate the family member endured.If i had my way, it would be more. Otherwise, killing them humanely takes them out of his miserable life and I would be left to endure the agony of loss and the thoughts of what my family member had to go through in his or her last moments. I would not feel satisfied. If others want the murderer put to death then fine, but as it stands I would rather know that the murderer is living the worst life possible to at least match the misery that I would feel. I would definitely want him to live as long as me and then be put to death. I would want him rehabilitated only to the point of him realizing the crime he committed so that he can suffer more, but not rehabilitated for release. If he went on a hunger strike, I would want him fed intravenously. Get the point? I would not be satisfied knowing that his life ended humanely. Again, if this is liberal, then I am liberal.

I have immigrant parents. I am over 50. You tell me if my parents spared the rod. If your kids need to be spanked then you should spank them. Fortunately, I have never had to spank my children. I am not sure how spanking children fits into this thread, but I won't question your motives further. Also, I am not sure how me wanting smaller government makes me a socialist. Not sure how you agreeing with the solution for the govt to add hundreds of thousands of armed personnel to the ranks makes you conservative. Maybe conservatives are really socialists in disguise? Something sounds wrong.

My type is doing it. I pay more than my fair share so that your type can enjoy a leisurely life and make ridiculous statements such as the desire to add armed people to schools which arms more people and not less.Your type criticizes the current administration for spending too much yet your type proposes to add more spending by adding armed personnel to schools. Think about how pathetically contradictory your type are!! My type is a bit too far to the right for your type. However, if my wanting to arm fewer people makes me liberal, then I suppose I am a liberal.

I probably appear delusional if you are conservative. Twist one up and enjoy. Thank your stars that someone did a lot of hard work for you.

You need more drugs. The drugs you are taking are not enough.

America is fantastic! It is the only place on earth where you can wear expensive clothes, have cable tv,, a cell phone, an xbox, and eat out 7 days a week and be considered poor. Our poor people still make as much as 8 times the amount that the average Chinese worker does. On the other hand, the poor areas have lots and lots of drugs. If you are rich or middle class and want to buy drugs, you, generally, have to go to a poor area to buy them. It is true that occasionally someone in a wealthy area sells drugs, but commonly they are distributed in poor areas. Drugs have the quality of making you do really stupid things to get more of them if you do not have the money. So, a poor person, gets desperate for drugs sooner than a wealthy person will. Drugs are also a commodity that if stolen won't get reported to law enforcement. Is it better to steal an item that will get reported to the police or one that won't get reported to police? Drugs simply increase incidence of violent crime. Firearms are the weapon of choice for violent crime. The US has more guns per capita than any other country. Racism exists. No doubt. It is a natural phenomenon. Theoretically, we would not exist if it were not for racism or prejudice, When our most recently genetically mutated ancestor emerged, it was very likely that he or she was shunned by the other non-mutants and he or she had to keep to her own kind and a new strand was able to get stronger. If he or she was completely accepted, then there is a good chance that we would still be swinging in trees. In spite of it being natural, I do not think that racism is as big a problem in the USA as it is in other countries. Racism has become something that is used for political gain. We constantly get racism jammed down our throats because certain groups use it to get what they want. They, therefore, need it to exist. If the perception was that racism did not exist or wasn't so bad, then they would not get as much as they could. It is very difficult for me to believe that racism is so prevalent in a country that just re-elected a black man for a second term. In addition to being black, he is poor. In my opinion it exists, but it is far less of an issue than we are sold. Again, we have a black president in office for a second term. Until this moment, I have never seen the face of the perpetrator in my home invasion fantasy. At this moment it is a black man, but that is because you made me do it. His face naturally fades to a scruffy, dirty, shadowy white fact when I think about it, but that is just before I crack it with a bat. It is a fantasy you know. I am certain that if we got rid of the illegal drug problem, the violent crime rate would diminish. If we had far better gun control, the homicide rate would decrease. This is not rocket science. The US states with the least gun ownership have the lowest rate of gun related death. The countries who produce drugs have very high gun related deaths. The countries who consume the most drugs and have easy gun ownership policies have the highest gun death rates. The poor countries which do not produce drugs, have the lowest drug consumption and gun death rates. The gun and drug relationship is incredibly evident to anyone with a brain. Unfortunately, in the US, making drugs legal and tightening gun control will not be seen as a solution. We will opt for the short term pacifying solution of putting an armed person in every school. That makes the parents happy. It makes the gun nuts happy. And it allows for the continuance of monopoly drug profits. Drugs Stoned Nation: International study of drug use places US in the lead. – Greg Laden's Blog Guns Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk