MightyMouse

Gun control is not a conservative/liberal issue.

In each and every massacre the guns that were used were legal or the guns origin is unknown. The guns probably shouldn't have been in the hands of these people but the guns were not guns that were smuggled in from somewhere and sold illegally. It is not a leap to say that if guns were not available for legal purchase (straw purchase?) that it would have been a lot more difficult for the lunatic to carry out his plan. There are other means of killing, no doubt, but none seem to be as convenient and effective as guns since most occur with the use of guns. Is that a leap? You can kill people with a golf club. Do you know of any mass murders in public places that occurred with a golf club? Even if there was one instance, how many people would have been killed? It is a leap to think that these lunatics would obtain guns illegally to carry out their plans. It is a leap because in each instance the guns were legal and have no way of knowing if they would have known were to obtain illegal guns.

The 80/20 statistic has been a long standing statistic. That is why it is always the butler.

This was sort of my point somewhere in this thread. If someone is fearful, they should seek counseling and not possess weapons. We know that fear is often a result of one's inability to determine if a threat exists or if one does not. If a person cannot tell if a threat exists, then is that someone who should be allowed to possess a firearm? By design his need for a gun is a result of a psychological deficiency.

Don't become old and jaded. We have new good old days that are as good as the old good old days. Do the same ride on a Harley. Want to talk about fun?

Your math is way off. A billion rounds might have been enough for a 7 year war when our forefathers walked the earth, but they would need a hell of a lot more now if they wanted to last 7 years. An equally rational explanation is that the govt has made these purchases because they are going to combat ring-around-the-collar in a way that is sure to succeed.

If you want an armed nation, then you have to accept another situation where another class of first graders get annihilated by an individual who possesses a legally purchased firearm. I am not suggesting that you have to like it, but you do have to accept it. When the time comes, if you have to rise up against your government, guns en masse will be available just as they are to others who fight for "freedom" in other countries. Don't fool yourself. The guns being used in those countries are not being purchased over the counter or being purchased by individuals who have a permit to carry. Needing guns for this possibility isn't rational. If I give up my guns and a tyrannical government moves against me, I will die about 1 second before you do.

I will ask you a question: If banning guns would prevent another Sandyhook elementary school shooting, would preventing that from happening again be enough of a trade off for you to give up your weapons?

Chicago crime with guns is among criminals. Criminals kill criminals all the time. I went to school in what amounts to south Harlem. Many people died in Harlem during my 4 years there. I was not a part of the crime scene and never once had a situation where I would have been better off with a gun nor was I ever robbed or attempted to be robbed, etc. New York is as Liberal Town as Chicago. I wasn't lucky. Many people are still there and can also make the same exact claim. You quickly turn it into a liberal and conservative thing. I am far from liberal and more conservative than any republican that I know. Just because someone doesn't support the NRA does not mean he is Liberal. Not sure if you can grasp that.

Where did you grow up?

Simply awesome!!! All but one used legally purchased hand guns. Would it make sense to make guns illegal so that they are less available? That would only make sense if you were sane. If they were less available, the the list would have only one name on it.

How do you keep irresponsible people who are also law abiding citizens from having guns? I know we have laws, but I am all for more and more laws to make it difficult and tedious to get a firearm.

You need to get you head out of the stone ages. Your history is, well, history. Times have changed. Our govt has weapons that are incredulously lethal. "Metal Storm" can fire 16,000 rounds a second. Yes a second. It also fires 250,000 exploding grenades a minute. In the time it takes you to read this post, they could take out an entire brigade of tanks. Good luck defending yourself with your bushmaster or a 9mm pistol. Your forefathers had no concept of today's weapons.

Pedro, you have skills.

I too am about as angry as one can be and even more angry to understand that nothing will happen to prevent this from happening again. As long as irresponsible people are allowed access to guns, these massacres will occur. I cringe hearing the reports now that the woman was teaching her son to respect guns. Yes, a mentally deranged person is going to learn a sound respect for firearms.

Predictor, it seems like a lot of the phrases in your posts are thoughts that come across your mind while using your software, or watching the market. Right or wrong, the posts are your interpretation of the "goings on" in the market at that moment in time. You are able to filter through your calls and find the "calls" that were meaningful. On the other hand, the reader does not share your filter and is not able to gain the same value from your posts as you do. You should expect that your efforts will lead to criticism. I suppose it is similar to watching a Pentecostal Christian who speak in tongues. When they are finished they seem drained and spiritually satisfied; however, the onlooker has a bewildered "WTF" look on his face.

Tradestattion, I am pretty sure, will let you code your strategy. It would simple to do if you started with no position. The code would be pretty simple. There are many people here on this forum and on the Tradestation forums who can whip that up in no time. You can code it to buy at price x only when you do not have a position and sell at price y only when you have a position. You can do almost anything you can dream up.

I would sell them to a gun shop. They would likely resell them to someone who is able to own a gun. I struggle with seeing law enforcement with assault weapons guarding our schools as they have for the last few days. It is asinine to suggest that the principal needs to carry a gun. We are not under siege. Gun nuts look to this and think that if the teachers had guns, this wouldn't have happened. I look at it as if the guns were not in that home, then this wouldn't have happened. I am certain if you watch the media coverage, you'll see the manicured lawns, the pictures of the frail boy in khaki pants and button down shirts and the puzzlement over how this can happen. It is simple: guns were legally purchased by an irresponsible gun nut who allowed her mentally deranged son to have access to them. As a result, he shot 20 children dead with 3-11 shots each. Yes, he shot them 3-11 times each. One needs to think about the ramifications of this for a bit before one decides that to solve the problem we need to add more guns. Just crazy. Ingot, I think I am about 20 years younger than you and I can say that in my lifetime there has not been a single instance where I wished I was carrying a gun. In fact, there are far more instances in my life that I am grateful that I did not have a gun. I think most people can say the same if they don't have an agenda. And you make a good point in that we are completely defenseless against our govt, given the firepower they have.

I live miles from where the tragic event took place. My children were in lock down on Friday and again today. It is difficult to begin to explain the terror and feeling of loss that surrounds the area. The only law that would have prevented the hell that occurred would be an outright ban on guns. The guns that the attacker possessed were bought legally by his mother who was, up until the time her son shot her 4 times in the face, a law abiding citizen. I know such a law will never occur because there are too many paranoid imbeciles who feel the need to arm themselves. I personally feel that if you feel the need to arm yourself, you should put off getting a gun and get mental help first, because if your decision to purchase a gun is because you are fearful, then you need help with the fear. A gun will only mask the problem. If you want what our forefathers intended with the second amendment, then you should be allowed to bear the arms that they intended. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, there were single shot black powder guns, not bushmaster .223s with 30 round clips. They amendment was drafted at a time when the US was vulnerable of attack by England, again, or France, Indians, etc. None of these threats have existed for years. These guys who hold out the 2nd amendment as gospel are no different from the Muslim fundamentalists who point to 12th century scripture as a way of life. Both are fucking nuts. Simply fucking nuts. I am not sure how you can look at a massacre of 20 children, 16 who were 6 years old and the other 4 who were eight, each shot between 3 and 11 times and say that guns should not be banned. Yes each were shot between 3-11 times. That mom's guns sure protected her. Fucking nuts. Just fucking nuts. The gun was purchased by a law abiding citizen. I guess the mom can't say "thank god I had a gun when I was attacked". For the record I own a hand gun and 2 rifles, I do not and will not carry. In fact they are not in the home that I live in. I no longer hunt and have not gotten around to selling them.

A stock "riding" a moving average will "rob" an account of all carfare

A stock "riding" a moving average will "rob" an account

A discretionary trader who doesn't have an edge is neither a discretionary trader nor a trader at all. Being able to identify how the market is working, whatever that means and if that is possible, is an edge. Taking money from the market is an edge no matter how you do it.

I disagree. I am not sure which you do, but I am a discretionary trader. I look for opportunities where weak traders have entered in the wrong direction. I have rules that I follow to prevent me from making mistakes. There is nothing wrong with taking a break when you feel like smashing everything, but taking yourself out of the opportunity flow because of a hard x or y I think is nonsense. Losses are expected and psychologically you should be ready to take losses and be ready to be wrong. Analogy: in poker (Hold'em) you can go for weeks playing, say, AA and losing every time. But, just because you are losing every time you get AA does not mean that you should stop playing AA and it does not mean that you should stop playing. Now, if you are playing them wrong, then I would suggest that you are not really ready to play, since only a novice expects to win every time he gets AA. For the record, I am criticizing the idea and not the person.

How does being away for 1 week or 2 weeks help? (rhetorical) Or how does going to sim help? (rhetorical) If you have an edge, you need to be in the trenches trading, slogging it out. If you don't have an edge, then lose you capital and go do something else. If you can't survive the equity swings like a man, you need to come to grips with the fact that you are not a trader. There is really no point in fooling yourself.

I think I recognize the woman in the NY Times article from a Baccarat table.