....
Correlation is not Caucasian.
Those killers might kill whether they take drug or not.
There are several aspects of this which could be split apart using statistical techniques and causation could I think be established. Not so sure about Caucasian.... |
|
|
|
The US has a very high proportion of prescribed meds when compared to the majority of western nations. I believe there is a good correlation between prescribed meds and gun violence.
As to why the general US public require assualt weapons in urban environments, or even for farming, is beyond me. In Australia, assault weapons & semi-automatics are banned. If you want to go hunting (Kangaroo, Deer, Goat, Water Buffallo or even Crocodiles) then you have access to bolt action rifles which means you need to be a well trained shot not some hill billy that sprays and prays.
So I come back to the US issue being one of culture, the desire to have fully automatic assault weapons and destabalising psychotropic drugs being over prescribed resulting in people whom loose the plot and have access to military grade weapons.
First, the US public does not "require assault weapons." As you note, hunting activities are quite well served by bolt action rifles. There are no hunters who spray and pray, as game scatters quickly. There is only time for one shot, in my experience. The exceptions to this would be what we consider dangerous animals, like wild pigs. These come at you and come after you, and you had better have some serious firepower. Large caliber pistol, eg, Dirty Harry's gun, comes to mind. And this is essentially a self defense problem, not hunting per se. Very few people in the US desire "fully automatic assault weapons". Semi automatic, such as the Glock in handhelds, and modern rifles, are likely what you meant to say. There are to my knowledge no cases of "fully automatic" weapons being used in crime in the USA, unless you literally go back to the 1920-1930s prohibition era, "Machine Gun Kelly", etc. |
|
|
|
When everyone and their mothers can have rifles what would you expect?
For the police the street is a battle zone...
IF that were true, these men would not be standing totally exposed. They are in a formation designed to prevent unarmed civilians from going past them, by lethal force if necessary. That is why their weapons are on display, so to speak. And that is why they are on display. |
|
|
|
If I gave you a gun would you shoot your family with it? I'm guessing very, very few would do that. So why do we think preventing law abiding citizens from carrying a gun will stop the violence? Now if someone said yes to my question, and would indeed shoot his family because he is mentally ill or a violent psychopath; why would we think that making a rule is going to stop him?
Our gun laws make no sense. They assume that good people will turn bad if they have a gun and that bad people will obey rules. In my experience this could not be more wrong.
Another part of this is the question, I believe unanswered, as to whether someone with mental illness controlled by psychoactive medical, who would be inclined to go on a rampage if taken off the medication, would similarly go on a rampage if he did not have guns available, and what the differences would be. |
|
|
|
I agree with this title.
Compare USA with Canada, for example.
In Canada there is no ''gun culture'' like in USA.
Result: Less violence and crime than in USA.
In USA people are ''brainwashed'' that they must have guns in order to protect themselves.
In reality is other way around, more violence, more crime and very unsafe living for average people.
Guns are not the part of solution but part of the problem.
So, something must be changed in USA before situation become worst.
USA need culture of ''peace'' not violence.
Most of this is untrue. There is no "gun culture " in the USA. There are many different cultures in the USA and areas, some places guns are useful and increase safety, some they are unnecessary. |
|
|
|
....
Also where there are heavy controls on firearms, you see criminals with PISTOLS commiting the most gun offenses that injure and kill people. Baseball bats are also regularly used as well as knives. For the most part so called "assault rifles" are not used almost ever in any gun shootings. Infact, using those types of rounds of ammunition to kill someone is not as effective as a pistol is. Hollow point bullets are designed to expand like a pancake insdie of someone. "assault rifles" us bullets that penetrate people and go through them making a small hole. If you really wanted to commit mass murder, using a glock 9mm with a 100 round drum would be way more effective and easier to maneuver with than using an "assault rifle".
Almost every sentence is wrong except the bolded section. I was joking with a friend a while back, the only real use of a pistol is to take some rifles away from their owners. |
|
|
|
The correlation with the pharmaceuticals has been known more than a year, but it still does not get talked about. Obviously, it is a narrative that conflicts with the desired narrative of the Left. Sooner or later there will be a major lawsuit against these pharmaceutical companies for not coming clean about the possible effects of using their products. |
|
|
|
Every single population group, which is having an above average prevalence of diseases which are spread through blood should be banned from donating blood. For every state / region, a HIV prevalence survey should be done. If the HIV prevalence for a particular population group (such as gays, IDUs, sex-workers, truck drivers, prisoners, bankers.etc) is more than 10 times the general prevalence, then that group should be excluded from donating blood.
And since HIV was first discovered among the homosexuals (it was exclusively a disease among the gays for more than a decade, before spreading to the general population through blood donated from the gays) I am skeptical about using blood derived from them.
This is just common sense. It's just not about HIV, by the way. There are numerous things transmitted by blood. |
|
|
|
You have forgotten chinese people.
The Chinese civilian deaths during the WW2 were caused by ethnic cleansing attempted by the imperial Japanese army. The German Nazi troops were not involved in these atrocities. Two separate wars, sort of conveniently held at the same time. |
|
|
|
Well this is the daily mail we are talking about the same people who said Dorian was Satoshi so they are a tad sensationalist Still this does creep me out there is extreme then their is ultra extreme. The deadline the people of Kosho have to meet is midday today. Since the residents refuse to betray their faith, it is feared an entire village of about 2,500 innocent people might be slaughtered in cold blood. ‘If we did not have families, we would try to escape,’ the stoical Falah told me yesterday. ‘But we have lots of women here and many children, along with all the old men and women of the village. How could we leave them?’ This is thought to be the first time these blood-drenched fanatics – who delight in boasting of their barbarism and posting sickening murder videos on social media – have threatened to wipe out an entire village. Call to arms I have a feeling that this really is not "Become Muslim by noon or we will kill you." Rather it's "Become our particular type of Muslim and support us and everything we say or do or we will kill you." A reasonable way to deal with this is to recognize an attempt to establish a medevil style Islamic Caliphate. Then mock it and ridicule it. Watch it fail. Help it fail. Make news of the barbaric nature of this stupid vision. Let people of the world - primarily Muslims - learn from a bad example. A very, very bad example. |
|
|
|
ISIS are worse than the Nazi's. As evil as the Nazi's were, they tried to cover-up their brutality but this lot seem to gloat in it. The world cannot stand back and let this group commit unspeakable crimes and grow in numbers. How they can do this in the name of Islam i don't know, they are savages, nothing more.
Hmm... no. They are not. The Nazis butchered some 25 -30 million innocent civilians, just because they thought that these ethnic groups were inferior. (6 million Jews, 4 million Poles, 1 million Roma, 10-15 million Russians / Ukrainians / Belarussians, and many more). How many people have been killed by the ISIS so far? The maximum number might be in 5 figures? That said, the ISIS is pure evil. They are a bunch of barbarians. Important part is bolded. |
|
|
|
Ebola is not an airborne disease. It is spread only through body fluids. So that makes Ebola less contagious than the other airborne diseases such as Tuberculosis and Influenza. Therefore, I don't think sufficient justification exists for declaring the martial law.
Might be handy around the time of elections, November 2014. |
|
|
|
...
I grew up in El Paso. Physically they are pretty much one big city. In the 1980s we used to go over to Juarez quite a bit for shopping and stuff. It is amazing how much the cartels and war on terror has changed things.
My impression it was NAPTA. You agree? At least it all started after that, but before the "war on terror". I didn't really have an issue with the idea behind it. Economic development in places like Mexico and the latin American countries is a good thing for everyone but without the needed infrastructure improvements south of the border and the agricultural markets not performing as expected have created more poverty rather than eliminating it. Criminal elements take advantage of such situations and it tends to spiral out of control. Back in the 1980's it was no big deal to go over to Juarez and spend a day. We had a good time, spent some money in the shops and businesses owned by the Mexican people and it was good for all involved. Now I would be hesitant to cross the bridge at all. Let alone with my family in tow. Right. It used to be fun. Maybe a few hassles from street kids running minor extortion scams to "watch your car for you." But even there, I'd kid and joke back and forth with them. Last time I went across, I was looking at on the US side, 2-3" flak jackets on the guys (AND ON THE DOG) doing duty there. On the Mexican side, typical federalis with what looked like M16s. And a jeep with a 50 cal. |
|
|
|
Allegedly With ISIS militants now threatening to attack the United States, the huge domestic anti-terror apparatus that has been built over the last decade will inevitably be used as a tool of homeland repression not to eliminate ISIS terrorists but to target politically active Americans who are adversarial to the Obama administration.
As we have exhaustively documented, domestic law enforcement in the United States has become increasingly militarized in recent years, with police departments across the country purchasing MRAP armored vehicles that were first used to fight against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A recent major ACLU report warns that such vehicles are part of a transformation into militarized policing where Americans are treated “like wartime enemies.” Indiana Police Sergeant Dan Downing also recently admitted that the militarization of domestic law enforcement was to deal not with ISIS militants but with returning veterans who are now seen as a homegrown terror threat.
Former Marine Corps Colonel Peter Martino, who was stationed in Fallujah and trained Iraqi soldiers, warned last year that the Department of Homeland Security is working with law enforcement to build a “domestic army,” because the federal government is afraid of its own citizens. Martino was speaking at a council meeting concerning a decision to purchase a BearCat armored vehicle. The purchase of the vehicle was mired in controversy after the city’s Police Chief wrote in an application filing to the DHS that the vehicle was needed to deal with the “threat” posed by libertarians, sovereign citizen adherents, and Occupy activists in the region. More... http://www.infowars.com/the-isis-threat-will-be-used-for-homeland-repression/Well, that's what the Founding Fathers intended. The government was afraid of it's own citizens. So that's what we have. I think that "domestic army" idea would work pretty well if they created zombies. And they wouldn't have to pay them. Or maybe hired foreigners. Let's see, you could put guys from San Francisco on Patrol Duty along the Mexico border. No, wait, put them around Tuscon and El Paso, to keep the citizens in, while the foreigners poured across the border. ROFL.... |
|
|
|
It isn't about the president it's about the persons that stay hidden but give him commands and he acts as sockpuppet.
That may have been true with Bush, but with Obama you have rows of sockpuppet after sockpuppet after sockpuppet... |
|
|
|
The definition of "smart Power". What a sad joke for those dying on that mountain...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... much of the US aid had been “useless” because it was dropped from 15,000ft without parachutes and exploded on impact.
This is not believable. Air Force cargomasters would not allow this. |
|
|
|
...
The balance is in letting the tax cattle believe they are free enough so they keep producing to support the myriad parasite classes.
+1 |
|
|
|
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost. The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses. Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program. He said the average family would save $2500. They didn't. My plan more than doubled in cost. A lot of people are in the same boat. Health care spending is also up as a nation, even when accounting for inflation. By more or less every measure Obama Care was a failure. I've been ordering prescription drugs from Canada for a long time, say 10 years, at 1/3 the cost of within the US purchases. Now with the passing of Obamacare, there's been a lot of pressure to put these businesses out of the reach of US citizens. Recently MC/Visa cut them off, and they asked me for personal checks to sell the meds. This is just one of many illustrations as to how socialist control can INCREASE COSTS. Of course it will. Why would the drug companies want otherwise? |
|
|
|
The problem with college costs is that anyone is able to get a student loan, with virtually no requirements. Even if the student is pursuing a degree with no earnings potential they will still qualify. The result of this is that students do not take price into consideration when choosing a school as they can certainly borrow money in order to attend. Another issue is the fact that colleges are pressured to be "diverse" so they offer scholarships to students who are part of a "minority" even though they are not deserving of them. This also increases the pressure of the price of tuition.
The problem with student loan costs is that the sole provider of student loans is the US Government. They print money, then "loan it" out. This is a great deal for them, compared to printing money and getting almost no return on it as Treasury bills. They would like more and more and more student loans. And more house loans, since they are basically the only people doing that too. They like debt slaves. The US government is likely to actually lose money on student loans due to defaults and debt forgiveness after a certain number of on-time payments. It is an illusion that they are making money (as is reported in the current budget). No. When you print money and then make loans, you always make money. |
|
|
|
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost. The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses. Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program. He said the average family would save $2500. They didn't. My plan more than doubled in cost. I really hope that Obamacare program will eventually succeed in USA, in the present or modified form, now or later in the future. I have many friends in uSA and their biggest concern is what will happen if they become sick because they can't afford health care. You call this universal health care socialism but for us, in Europe, this is perfectly normal, that government provide basic health care for everyone. If you want better health service, you pay. It would be as much of a mistake for you to assume that "European style health care socialism" of Obama would work here, as it may have been for Bush to assume that "American style democracy" might flourish in the middle east. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
