beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by beowulf

  1. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-19/presenting-college-whose-graduates-have-62-student-loan-default-rate Which college you go to does matter.
  2. There are too many different definitions of the word God. It's much more interesting to just follow the evidence where ever it leads to and this is much more interesting then an imagined god.
  3. It depends on what the degree is in. If you graduate college with a sociology degree and $200,000 in student loans, it's not likely to be better off then someone with no degree and very low debt. It's more of a debt to income ratio, rather then education level. If you get a degree in electrical or mechanical engineering you are much more likely to be better off, although the hi level of debt is a big drag that needs to be dealt with.
  4. More support for that view: Since Obama has been in office, more than 60 million gun background checks have been done. That's more than the entire population of the UK. That's 20% of the population of America. And yet with all those additional guns sold, crime rates are still going down. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130205_1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals.pdf And, JohnR, the homicide RATE in the US is still way higher than that of any other western developed nation including the UK. There is no indication that new gun laws will change that.
  5. Has it done anything to reduce crime? Iowa tends to be a low crime state to begin with I did however (to be honest) find out yesterday that private sellers are asked to see permits to purchase or weapons permiits (what is required by an ffl) but private sells would suffer no consequenses should they not do so Everyone I know DOES do this But it is not required by law It just shows there is no direct correlation between crime and gun control laws. I personally suspect that gun laws have little to no affect on reducing crime. Iowa is a low crime area and would probably remain that way no matter what the gun laws are. I don't think the availability of guns causes people to be more or less violent then they would normally be. But the availability does affect those who follow the laws and their ability to defend themselves against the criminal elements in society. No matter what the laws are criminals will still have access to firearms.
  6. Someone is Shoddy logic (as I expect from you) combined with a self-serving strawman. Reserves don't prevent every skydiving death completely, yet I'm sure you jump with one. Seat belts don't prevent every senseless traffic fatality completely, but I'm sure you wear one. And dozens of other examples where just because we can't "prevent every [fill in the blank] completely" doesn't mean that we can't make an improvement. You use very poor logic in attempting to compare gun laws to reserves and seat belts. There is no direct correlation between gun laws and lowering crime. Another self-serving claim from someone who's afraid his access to his toys is threatened. Wow! stooping to insults. Very impressive! Should I post the link to the Harvard gun control study or the one from Austria?
  7. Someone is Shoddy logic (as I expect from you) combined with a self-serving strawman. Reserves don't prevent every skydiving death completely, yet I'm sure you jump with one. Seat belts don't prevent every senseless traffic fatality completely, but I'm sure you wear one. And dozens of other examples where just because we can't "prevent every [fill in the blank] completely" doesn't mean that we can't make an improvement. You use very poor logic in attempting to compare gun laws to reserves and seat belts. There is no direct correlation between gun laws and lowering crime.
  8. You missed my point entirely. Creating useless laws that don't work is worse then not creating any new laws. There are things that can be done. I gave one example, but you, among others seem to think the only solution is more laws.
  9. I didn't say it didn't, you were the one making the claim and I asked how you knew that. It doesn't stop anyone from buying a gun threw other means.
  10. Has it done anything to reduce crime?
  11. The police are there to respond to crimes and investigate them not to be our personal body guards. We are each responsible for our own safety. The police can not respond quick enough to save the average person.
  12. Laws are only as good as the people enforcing them or that are willing to follow them. We can't stop people from doing things that are against the current laws. An example of this is all of the drug laws on the books and yet we can't stop people from using heroin, cocaine or any of the other drugs deemed illegal. Why do you think more gun laws are going to make any difference? We can't stop felon's or crazy people from getting guns. We already have laws for that and they don't work. So any new gun laws really only affect those willing to follow them, the law abiding people. Do we really need to disarm those people? Wouldn't they generally be the targets of the criminal elements of society? Does that really make sense to you? Why would we care how many rounds the magazines of law abiding citizens hold? Does it really matter? Banning things doesn't work. Just think of Prohibition of the 20's. It didn't solve any of the problems they wanted it to and it created problems they never thought of.
  13. Have you ever seen all of the container configurations that Bill Booth built before he got to the Wonderhog? I think most engineers would disagree with your comment. JerryBaumchen In that context I would agree. But creating new laws that won't fix the problem or even help is not the same thing.
  14. "Curing better than prevention"??? Not even sure what you mean by this. The new laws that have been proposed wouldn't prevent anything. The only people they will affect are those willing to follow the laws.
  15. So that is your best argument for adding new laws that we know won't work? Very few people who fail the background check are prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm illegally. The NICS database isn't updated as well as it could be. Mentally ill people are often not flagged in the NICS background check due to it not being updated. There are other laws that we could do a better job of enforcing, but that is the first that comes to mind.
  16. Doing something that doesn't work isn't better then doing nothing. Creating new laws in an attempt to stop people who already don't follow the existing laws doesn't make any sense. How about putting more effort into enforcing the existing laws?
  17. Some people just like to create controversy and conspiracy theories. Apparently they have nothing better to do.
  18. Chuck doesn't need to use his shoulder. He just fires it single handed like a handgun!
  19. You seem to see what you want to see. The OP did not make this claim. I don't know if you are lying or what? What the OP was saying is that "Assault Weapons" can't take down an airliner from a mile out. And that is true. The weapon you trotted out isn't an "Assault Weapon". Since gun nuts assure us that "assault weapon" is a meaningless concept, how can you possibly make that claim (unless you want to have it both ways, that is)? Ah yes some more intentional ignorance. If you will notice I did put it in quotations. It's the term that is widely used even though it was never a classification of weapons. It was made up by the gun banning people to try and make their argument seem more meaningful. I only used it because it was used by Bloomberg. It's generally used to describe a shoulder fired semi automatic weapon, usually an AR15 or AK47 type rifle. Neither of which are advertised as being used to take down airplanes. The Browning M2 is not a shoulder fired weapon.
  20. It's either ignorance or dishonesty. Either way it's still wrong. Considering that many have pointed out that the Browning M2 is not an "Assault Weapon" and he continues with his straw man argument, I am leaning away from ignorance.
  21. And you continue with your straw man argument. Browning M2's are not "Assault Weapons". Those are Class 3 weapons that are very expensive to buy and shoot. It's obvious to anyone who cares to be honest about this argument that it's not what the OP or Mayor Bloomberg was referring to.
  22. You seem to see what you want to see. The OP did not make this claim. I don't know if you are lying or what? What the OP was saying is that "Assault Weapons" can't take down an airliner from a mile out. And that is true. The weapon you trotted out isn't an "Assault Weapon".
  23. I caught the end of the game. Very exciting! Kings managed to tie it up at 2 and the Red Wings scored in the last 30 seconds to win the game.
  24. A Browning M2 is not the same thing as a BAR. They aren't even close to being the same thing.