Coreeece

Ohhh, scary. Sharia. Did they mention anything about Halacha, or is only Sharia scary? Some people shit their pants at the mere sight of the ten commandments. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

not sure what common sense that is....why would guns increase over time? I addressed that it in the part of my post that you conveniently ignored. I don't mind selective quoting as long as you don't ask questions that I've already addressed in the parts that you selectively left out. Guns are built to last. I thought it was common sense that you don't throw them in the garbage. Nah, there was a major spike after Sandy Hook when there was talk about banning semi-automatic assault rifles. Clinton banned them back in 1994-2004, so to think that they would ban them again is neither paranoid nor delusional. This is all beside the point tho - we were talking about the average number of guns per gun-owning household. We've seen larger spikes in 1994-1998 when the average amount of guns jumped from 4-6 per household. By 2000, there were just under 7 guns per gun-owning household - so the fact is that in the last 15 years, the average number of guns only went up by about 1 gun per household. The overall increase can largely be attributed to concealed carry, hunting and the end of the assault rifle ban in 2004. Don't get shot off of your high horse. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Probably for the same reason why posters here were against Hillary and a Clinton dynasty a year ago, but will now be voting for her in November anyway - they don't like the other guy. ...and tho many in the GOP may despise Trump's character, is he really that much of a threat to their policies? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time. In the 80s, that number was around 4.1, but in the 90s the economy was booming. People had money to update their collections. They were having children and their sons became part of the hunting tradition and bought more guns. One person can easily have 2 different shotguns for fowl and 2 different rifles for larger game - that's 4 different guns for one person, big deal. Also, it wasn't until the 90s when concealed carry started to take-off and people started buying hand guns - so there's that as well. The good thing in all of this is that hunting and concealed carry aren't the cause of gun violence. In fact, the crime rate has dropped nearly 50% despite the addition of these guns - So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone? According to the DoJ, over 300,000 guns are reported stolen every year. Since only law abiding gun owners would report the theft, and only criminals steal stuff, it seems that it IS a problem that many of these legal guns end up in the hands of criminals. That vast majority of violent gun crimes are not committed with stolen guns. So while that may seem like the major problem to you, it's just more truthy gun control nonsense. When are you going to stop blaming the victims? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Good stuff. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

and she's so terrible, he'll still have to drop to even more gargantuan depths to succeed. but he has a good start on it http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=148266; I'd like to see and SNL skit where Hillary and Trump are talking to each other on the phone late night while they're in bed, as if they're in cahoots - and maybe even having some type of creepy love affair. Hillary: You were kind of rough last night - what was all that about me not satisfying my husband? Don't you think that was going a bit too far? Trump: Hill, babe - I told you it was gonna be nasty, it's gonna hurt - but I have to make it believable, Americans are smart. Hillary: Ok, but tell me the truth - do I satisfy YOU? Trump: Well, you're no Rosie O'Donnel, but ya - you can hold your own. Hillary: Oh, Donny! You always have the biggest plans, and the best words. I'm sorry I ever questioned you. You're the greatest. (Hillary continues to stoke his ego) Trump: So what are you wearing? (Camera pans down and shows her in a pant suit) Ok guys, now brainstorm on that - I want to see something by tomorrow afternoon. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well, that's one way to get transsexual males to use the correct bathroom. Hell, they may even reconsider having gender reassignment surgery. "Ya, I'd like to cancel my appointment with Dr. Lopper - something came up - it turns out I'll need my penis after all." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well, at least you're a good sport about it. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time. In the 80s, that number was around 4.1, but in the 90s the economy was booming. People had money to update their collections. They were having children and their sons became part of the hunting tradition and bought more guns. One person can easily have 2 different shotguns for fowl and 2 different rifles for larger game - that's 4 different guns for one person, big deal. Also, it wasn't until the 90s when concealed carry started to take-off and people started buying hand guns - so there's that as well. The good thing in all of this is that hunting and concealed carry aren't the cause of gun violence. In fact, the crime rate has dropped nearly 50% despite the addition of these guns - So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Lol, when you "TYPE," it's like a 5 year old slapping at the keyboard. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Usually, when someone says "period" after making a statement, it typically means "end of story." There is usually no need for any further emphasis or discussion, yet you continued to talk. FIFY I should have been more absolute. When someone says "period" after making a statement, it means "end of story." There is no need for further emphasis, unless you lack confidence in your initial statement. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Usually, when someone says "period" after making a statement, it typically means "end of story." There is no need for any further emphasis or discussion, yet you continued to talk. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

So everyone must fit into one of 2 hard categories, eh? Apparently, you haven't read my recent postings: - Arguing with Kallend about open/closed primaries. - Arguing with Kallend about requiring voters to register to with a party to vote in a primary. - Arguing that the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment refers to all males over 18yo. I was registered Republican before I changed it to "Independent". And I belonged to the NRA until they started trotting out fear-mongering nitwits like Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent at their conventions. I used to share the Republican conservative view when they were for: - Balanced budgets. - Non-involvement in foreign wars. - Non-interference in private affairs of citizens. But by the turn of the century they had done 180-degree turns on all of those issues, so I no longer even use the term "conservative" for the GOP. My apologies. I'm equally offended when someone refers to me as a republican. I deliberately said "left leaning/liberal/democrat" thinking that you may relate to at least one of those labels. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

No. We're not talking about Trump. Correct, you were talking about Coulter. If your names weren't directly linked to your comments about her, I would've thought they were something Trump might have said. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Certain groups are affected differently by a variety of social issues. The demographics have to be recognized in order to effectively address the problem. Now while race may not directly predispose one to poverty, suicide or violence, there are cultural differences that allow certain behaviors and conditions to persist. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I think addressing demographics play a major role in solving the problem. White Middle class suburbanites represent the majority of suicides. Rednecks and white trash Rural lower income and blue collar workers are notorious for domestic violence, hence the term "wife-beater" given to certain styles of clothing. 30% of domestic homicide victims are black women, even though they only represent 6% of the population. Are cops to blame for those disproportionate figures as well? Likely that last one the majority is urban poor so race not a factor either but as percentages were included would need to see the socioeconomic numbers. Where did I ever say race was a factor? It is what it is. People that react like this are most likely operating on an implulsive level of psycological development wrt conflict resolution - however, their milage may vary. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I think addressing demographics play a major role in solving the problem. White suburbanites represent the majority of suicides. Rednecks and white trash are notorious for domestic violence, hence the term "wife-beater" given to certain styles of clothing. 30% of domestic homicide victims are black women, even though they only represent 6% of the population. Are cops to blame for those disproportionate figures as well? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Please. If you didn't know her politics (and she kept her mouth shut) you wouldn't kick her out of bed if she offered it up. On the other hand, her mind is by far her ugliest feature. Fully agreed. I'd take her out...if she agreed to wear a ball gag. This just goes to show that Trump is just playing up to how people already think. It may not be presidential, but it's real - and he knows how to tap into that "reality tv" mentality. The only difference is that you three guys are left leaning/liberal/democrats rather than right leaning/conservative/republican. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I've taken a week or more to think this over, and the only answers I can come up with are weak tea. Yes, that's why many gun control advocates turn to emotional pleas of rhetorical truthiness. They have no other argument but to blame people they don't like - like law abiding white gun-toting christian conservative boogeymen - and they ignore any reasonable solutions that don't fit that narrative, which is why you still have yet to address the causes/solutions I've already listed. No. You arbitrarily placed an amount on how many people would vote against something. I'm just asking you to clearly define what that something would be. You said that the only fix was to reduce guns. How would you propose to do that? How many guns would need to be taken away to make a difference? Would you ban the future manufacturing and/or purchase of new guns? Ya, because it's a stupid fucking idea - open/concealed carry isn't the problem, is it? I'm not sure what you mean by this. In post #140, Wolfriverjoe said "I'd support ideas that will actually reduce violence, not simply take rights away. It's just that I have yet to see a measure proposed that will do anything. Most of what is proposed is in the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safe" category" Your response was that we're all the same - that we just make up rationalizations and are unwilling to to make concrete decisions to reduce guns - "blah blah blah," right? All the while, you have proposed nothing that would actually reduce the amount of guns, and only insisted on taking away gun rights while ignoring serious long term solutions that have already been proven to work and have been set in place while you continue to bitch about how fucked up the United States is. Until you realize that, your "answers" will always be "weak tea." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Curious, how do you know they moved north? There's just more room the further north you go - that's where the development is. Plus, that's just how it's always been the last 30 years or so. After things went south in Detroit, the goal was to move north of 8 Mile - the suburbs. As the stench of urban sprawl became stronger in the burbs, the goal was to move north of 18 mile. However many people also just left the state - but that has always been an issue in Michigan. What ever verbiage ends up being developed in this thread, so that we can have the conversation America needs to have, must have the "violence component" explicit in its context. Right now, while Chris Rock can use the unspeakable-word, we can't. But, we need to have a speakable-word to actually have the conversation. It's critical, and we really need to figure this out. If we can't have this conversation in Speaker's Corner, then we can't have this conversation anywhere in America, IMO. I suppose "thugs" would work. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Yes, especially in the midst of our next bursting phase. Part of me hopes that it happens within the next couple months before a major election, as the trends suggest. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

"He’s a diehard Democrat" Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Interestingly enough, I think the housing crisis may have actually helped the problem - at least in Detroit. At that time, Detroit was facing two issues - the housing crisis and the automotive bankruptcies. This resulted in many suburbanites losing their jobs and their homes. Many took early retirement, while others took advantage of unemployment insurance. They used this as an opportunity to move further north into developing rural areas an simplify their lives. Likewise, about 200,000 people living in Detroit saw this as an opportunity to move into those discounted suburban homes in areas that had better schools, with a better influence that provided an overall better quality of life. Now while this didn't necessarily solve the cycle of violence in Detroit, it did significantly reduced a segment of the population that is subjected to, and influenced/impacted by that violent sub-culture. This is also a good example of why crime stats aren't always reliable. After the housing crisis and bankruptcies we see a spike in the crime rate, but this is more likely due to the drop in population that is skewing the numbers. I seriously doubt that violent criminals were among the 200k that high-tailed out of Detroit as soon as they saw the opportunity. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I have mixed feelings about the solution to the problem. I know it's possible to fix it, but the uncertainty in America's future right now seems to create a tendency to leave these issues on the back burner until other underlying issues are sorted out. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Chris Rock - When Can White People Say Niggah? https://youtu.be/qPDetBACaU0?t=44 Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour