sdoma

Not true. What would make you money in that scenario is your trade and money management. Cut your losers short and ride the winners.

A note about the coin flip generator you used. Remember, the results you are looking at are not truly random if they are generated by an algorithm. By its nature, it is mathematical and predictable. The market has some qualities of randomness without being truly random. At times, it does have purpose. At other times, you are looking at random-like noise. Knowing which instance you are observing is probably the most important skill you can have as a trader.

Your teacher? Who says I'd bother with you? I was just asking you to define yourself clearly. Most people think they're being much more clear than they really are. I asked you to define a swing trader because for some people, a swing trader can be an intraday trader. For others, they trade swings anywhere from a few days to a week long. It's just one of those things that people tend to define differently. But hey, I don't say THE TRUTH in capital letters either. Maybe I just don't understand you. My point was that even traders who are going to keep their trades on a few days will often read the order flow to execute, especially with size.

Define swing traders. What time frame are you thinking about? Also, I'd challenge the idea that only ultra short time scalpers need to read the DOM, I think any intraday player needs to invest heavily in learning that skill.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated: "If you seek peace, prepare for war." This simply means that strength is the best (though not perfect) deterrent to violence. There are good people in this world, and there are evil people. There are also people whose actions are determined more by circumstance and benefit than their morality. You can throw as much kumbaya at me as you want, but not 75 years ago, in the United States, a liberal socialist democrat (a saint of the Democrat party) jailed an entire ethnic group without due process of law, and in the process robbed them of all the earthly possessions they couldn't carry. I know you aren't American, but just look up the internment of ethnic Japanese American citizens. That was in modern times, brother, and it's one of many examples, most of which are much worse. Oh, and those violent gangs who made a truce? That happens all the time in organized crime, because eventually they figure out that if they divide up the territories, everybody makes more money. Ask yourself, has that stopped them from terrorizing the innocent people that live in those neighborhoods? Has that stopped their violent recruitment efforts that can take otherwise decent kids and turn them criminal? If you had ever experienced a neighborhood in the grip of a gang, you would never use them as an example, EVER. I applaud the fact that you're positive. I am a realist. There exists positive and negative in the world, and ignoring either end is a mistake.

The UK has a much lower overall murder rate than the US. It is, however, irrelevant to the gun debate. The US has always had a much higher murder rate than the UK, even going back to colonial times. Also, for a large stretch of that time, neither place had any gun control measures. A more interesting exercise is to look at all types of murder in the UK in the years leading up to the passing of stringent gun control measures, and then at the years from then until now. Murders actually spiked after the implementation of the ban and remained elevated for a few years, and are now tracking about the same as before the ban. You can say whatever you want about Britain's gun control laws, but they don't appear to have helped curb what violence and murder Britain has. Other countries also bear out a lack of connection between gun ownership rates, gun control laws, and murder rates. Countries like Russia, Honduras, and Jamaica have very strict gun laws and astronomical murder rates. China and Japan have similarly strict laws and low rates. Switzerland has very high rates of ownership due to compulsory military service and also has an extremely low crime rate. Study after study have simply failed to find a correlation between legal firearms ownership and murder.

It's not asinine on its face, it's asinine because it's an obvious straw man argument, and the whole thing doesn't make sense anyway for what you're trying to do with it. The only thing that would happen in this crazy hypothetical is that they would break out. Also, it's possible that (in this magical scenario that we keep them in) while murders or justifiable killings would increase, rapes and assaults would decrease. Harder to rape a guy who is packing. As an aside, not everyone in prison is violent, many are in there because of our ridiculous drug policies. The actual valid point in your argument actually supports a core pro-liberty belief. A small, armed group of people can control a much larger unarmed one. This has reams of historical precedent, to the point that you can't really argue it. You actively disarm a group of people or an individual for one reason - to control them. Some state control is good, as it is required to protect individual rights and set economic and legal frameworks in place (i.e. contracts, non-violent dispute resolution) that make civilized society possible. If you disarm an entire populace, however, and keep weapons in the hands of the chosen few, the level of state control becomes too great and its susceptibility to abuse increases dramatically, to the point that it becomes near-certainty. I'm not saying that you have to let everyone have a gun; people like children, violent felons and the mentally ill shouldn't be able to own guns. In other words, if you've proven yourself dangerous, unlawful and/or can't enter a legal contract, I'm OK with you not being allowed to bear a firearm. I don't want the crazy schizophrenic homeless man (that the ACLU has decreed has the capacity to decide he shouldn't be institutionalized) packing heat. But there has to be a very good reason to prove someone is dangerous before denying them a constitutional right. Sandy Hook was a tragedy, a truly terrible thing. The ugly fact of the matter is that no existing, reasonable, or constitutional control would have kept Lanza from getting his hands on a firearm. He also didn't need a rifle to slaughter tykes. Handguns would have been just as effective at that range, and with a little practice, you can change a 7 or 10 round magazine in under a second. Being disarmed by a 6 year old isn't going to happen when you change mags. Having six thousand rounds of ammunition in your house is also irrelevant, as you can't carry more than a hundred or so on you - ammunition is bulky and HEAVY. The vast majority of criminals have no more than several rounds. People who have thousands of rounds are target shooters or law enforcement who buy in bulk to keep costs down. Before you endorse policies, I implore you, consider a few questions: 1. What will this policy actually accomplish? 2. Who could conceivably benefit? I.e., cui bono? 3. What are the second-order effects of this policy? Is there any way it can be exploited or gamed? I await your response.

Perhaps more effective methods of controlling the prisoners? Tactics do evolve. Another friend of mine has a brother who was a prison guard for about a decade, I'll ask him the next time I see him. But really, this is just an enormous straw-man argument with no real insights to offer on the world outside, and really there's no way we can test the hypothesis and even figure out what would happen inside. It's just so moot. I just had to respond to the argument you made and you have to admit it was asinine.

Whatever you're smoking, I need some. How about we try a logical argument, shall we? Maybe, just maybe, the murder rate is lower in prison because the prisoners are locked up most of the day, and under watch 24 hours a day. What do you think the murder rate would be for normal people under those conditions? And what do you think the murder rate would be for those same prisoners if we just locked them all into a compound with no staff and airdropped supplies in? Further, if you separate out the murder rates for white males, I'll bet you it's a hell of a lot lower than 4 per 100k. So, you yourself are probably much safer than the average prisoner. Finally, murder isn't the only type of violence you can experience in prison. They get in fights all the time, and sexual assault can be fairly common, depending on what prison you're in. I worked with a guy whose brother did time for accessory to murder. Saw someone get shot and was too afraid to talk, supposedly. The stories his brother told him would curdle your blood.

You could foil a trigger lock, or crack a conventional safe? That would involve stealing the key, and if your parents kept theirs on them, it would have been pretty difficult. But at that point, you didn't beat the safe, and you are looking at the gun in a controlled environment (Mom is there). That's what should happen, because it would have sated your curiosity. At 13, your parents should have taken you shooting and taught you proper gun safety, and even then, they should still be locked up. Believe it or not, gun safety becomes very real after you've actually fired one and felt its power, and at any gun range, safety is PARAMOUNT. They don't mess around at all, and they aren't nicey nice about it either. That attitude sinks into a kid. I'm not sure what stats you're relying on to make this judgment. The chances of both are very, very low. Ever had much experience with meth addicts? How would you like to watch that happen to your kid, and be helpless to stop it? Don't you think if you lost a kid like that you'd be rabidly anti-drug? Don't give me your "they won't" excuses, it's a cop out so you don't have to contemplate the scenario.

You can keep your gun in a biometric gun safe in your room. They cost a couple hundred bucks and there's no key to find or combination to guess. Works off your finger print (and your spouse, the safe holds multiple profiles). Plus, in a high stress situation you don't have to work a little key into it or key in a combo. Problem solved, unless one of your kids bashes the other one's head against the safe. I love how binary you are. It's either don't keep guns, or kids get shot. You're a smart guy, but you are reasoning emotionally. You might feel differently about the war on drugs if you had addiction problems in your family, especially meth or heroin. But you don't, so you can be logical about it.

You're kind of misunderstanding the point the founders were making. Remember, many of the founders were agnostic or deists, so it wasn't religious fervor driving the statement. They were careful to point out that all people have certain rights which are given to them by a higher power, and are not bestowed by government. Thus, the government cannot revoke those rights as it pleases. The Constitution recognizes and protects those rights. If they had just said, "hey, the govt is giving you these rights," that means that govt could take them away when it became expedient.

You reminded me of a quote, so I went and dug it up for you. I'd like you to think about it and your idea of government as omnipotent. I think there's truth in it what he has to say.

And this presupposes that law enforcement and military personnel would move in lockstep to do so, or that the elites would have a drone army. Devil ex machina? That's not the case, and with all of the former LEO and Vets out there, including SpecOps guys, an American insurgency would be much, much more difficult to defeat, and impossible to control, as long as there are weapons out there for them to use. That's why we have the 2nd amendment. From ambushes, to bombings, to sniper attacks from people that blend in with your supporters, a tyrannical government would have a great deal of difficulty holding on to power. Think of what a couple of former Delta snipers could do with Barrett 50 cal rifles. Those rifles can kill from over a mile away. Would a tyrant dare make an appearance in the open at that point? Again, I am not a proponent of arming all faculty, and especially not of requirements that they do so. I did hear an intriguing proposal from a friend of mine, that every principal's office have a biometric safe that, when opened by one of a few people in the school, would automatically alert all police depts in the area to an armed intruder in the school. Inside it would have a shotgun with bean bag rounds inside which are non-lethal but capable of incapacitating an assailant, even in body armor. One shot from that would have put Lanza down for the count. Not saying that should be done, but there are a range of ideas out there that should be looked at that, at reasonable cost, would prevent and/or minimize deaths from these shooters. Locks on doors and potential one button lock down capability come to mind. Actually making schools hard to get into is another. It can be done without making them look like a prison.

I'm not sure you really considered all the data they represented. First, they compare crime rates in places with heavy gun control to places without, and point out that there is no correlation. Some places with gun control have low crime, others high. Same for places without. They postulate that in many high-crime gun control districts, gun control was instituted as a reaction to high crime rates, then examine the data before and after the regs are put in place, showing that violent crime often spikes following. They are careful to make the point, however, that more guns doesn't equal less crime, but nor does it equal more. They attribute violent crime rates to socioeconomic factors, which is not a conservative position, but a liberal one. As I said above, the comparison was not willy-nilly. I think you just did a quick scan of the study without really reading the analysis. Actually, this result is CONSISTENT with their findings, that firearms laws do not heavily impact the overall crime/murder/suicide rates either way. I could make a convincing case that the differences between Chicago and NYC are due to NYC's use of stop-and-frisk (perhaps unconstitutional itself) and Chicago's rampant political corruption and public housing policies, which are theorized to be gang-creating. Chicago's gang problem is much worse than NYC's, and the ghetto residents hold a lot of political power here. Chicago's police force has also been pared back to 9,000 and change from over 13,000 under Daley. Actually, that depends on the situation and the people involved. Let's say that you and three of your good friends are forced to exist in close proximity with guys that are Latin Kings. Let's say that one of you dissed them in some way, and now they got a beef with you. Do you think that your being armed would increase the chances of violence being perpetrated against you? Is there a higher chance that they would try something, or a lower chance?