Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=scaredyclassic]
instead of steadily eroding savings, wouldn’t it be more effective to have it be done randomly and in larger chunks/ Anyone who leaves cash in the bank for over 6 months, say, can randomly have a 2% chunk sliced away, say up to 3x a year. it’s done randomly by a computer. the money goes toward military operations to ensure dominance of the currency. this way, people will go out and spend it all..[/quote]That would produce one hell of a bank run. With reserve lending every bank in America would be bankrupt in that scenario. Perhaps that is a good thing.[/quote]
even if it wre just once a year, people wouldnt tolerate it. they prefer to boil to death slowly and uniformly, rather than get hacked it brutally and quickly…
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=scaredyclassic]
CONS:none.
[/quote]Our mass killings shooters will now have military training and actually know how to use and shoot that assault riffle.[/quote]
cancelled out by the trained responding citizens
Participantthe rich plumber is kind of a cliche, but goshdarn, we were talking to this plumber who did some work in our house the other day, had a couple helpers, and his combined take home (he couldve been exagerrating but i doubt it) was greater than my househole income.
the bigger question is not which rental to buy, but why college?
maybe the money shoudl be put into starting a small business not for the poster, but the kids…
a real plan involves making kids selfsufficient.
Participanthttp://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80422119/
good summary of why the rodger memoir is compelling and meaningful…
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=Jazzman]
The Fed can only influence short term rates. So I guess the answer is, yes. But isn’t that happening anyway? Inflation hovers around 2%, and rates on savings say, 0.02%. So real net interest would equal -1.94% over one year.[/quote]
And that’s what confuses me…I’m not exactly sure about EU economic stats right now, but the EU is the largest economy in the world IIRC.
Assuming the EU was doing some level of QE – what does that say about the state of the EU economy?
I don’t think even Japan did NIR (negative interest rates).[/quote]
instead of steadily eroding savings, wouldn’t it be more effective to have it be done randomly and in larger chunks/ Anyone who leaves cash in the bank for over 6 months, say, can randomly have a 2% chunk sliced away, say up to 3x a year. it’s done randomly by a computer. the money goes toward military operations to ensure dominance of the currency. this way, people will go out and spend it all..
Participant2,000 unique visitors a day at one time. seems like a lot.
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]
Right, which is why they want to do it piecemeal. First, they enact more “modest” gun control laws like restrictions on types of weapons allowed, and registration — neither of which, BTW, would stop or reduce violence or homicides — because the PTB could begin tracking the movement of weapons. They would have gun buybacks and other programs that would somewhat reduce the number of guns, and gradually, they would get us to a point where we feel that the govt would have the right to know the weapon status of every single citizen and resident in the U.S.Once they know the weapons status and everything else about us (and they are making HUGE strides in data aggregation on U.S. citizens), then they can go in for the final kill: full confiscation of all weapons that can be used by a resistance or revolutionary movement.
If you can watch what’s been happening over the past few decades (especially as it relates to privacy, data mining and aggregation, laws regarding “domestic terrorism,” etc.) and still feel that the Second Amendment is some how ridiculous or anachronistic, then you’re either naive and/or not paying attention.[/quote]
Yes, you are right, I am naive about this massive conspiracy to strip 60% of America it’s guns… wait, or just 20%…
But let’s just assume there is this conspiracy in play, then gun ownership then is equal to patriotism. I should thank you for your patriotic defense of my liberty then. what about the victims of gun violence? Just martyrs who died for our freedom…[/quote]
The revolution will actually be televised on pay per view.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.
As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.[/quote]
Actually I did read that. And looked into the claim of 2.5 million per year. It’s a number that’s been pushed by the NRA. The data is more than 15 years old, and it comes from a number ofk different surveys. Some of them ask if the respondent has ever used a gun in self-defense. Some ask if they’ve used a gun in self-defense in the last 5 years. And from those surveys they came up with 2.5 million per year. It’s bogus.
On an annual basis, I suspect that number is in the low thousands. There doesn’t appear to be any recent surveys asking the question directly. 2.5 million per year would be almost 7,000 a day. Yet we almost never hear about them. How can that be possible?
The drop in crime may be in part related to 3 strikes laws, though all states don’t have them. The larger cause is demographics. Men in their late teens to mid-20’s commit most crimes. There are fewer of them now than there were 3 decades ago.
I think you’re right that the percentage of gun owners is more important than homes with guns. Based on a quick review of 4-6 recent surveys, it appears that number is somewhere between 20 and 25%.[/quote]
I think the freak on omits guys said the drop in crime is basically related to roll very wade and less unwanted kids.
Participanti am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
it’s difficult for me to imagine generally likely scenarios where a normal person will be able to get their gun in their hand in a useful way during an actual justifiable situation outside the home.
A super well trained hypervigilant dude who is approaching all movement through society as if he were about to engage in gun battle might have a chance. but not an average schlump walking about.
you don’t get to pull a gun on someone and shoot unless theya re presenting you with deadly force. yelling, screaming, being scary or minority, not enough.
id like to hear more about actual anecdotes of successful self defense witha gun. I havea feeling selfreported successful incidents would in large part not stand up to analysis…
http://shivworks.com/ im going for the edged weapons overview in october. i would like to learn practical ways to dole out deadly force if im actually physically attacked short of fumbling about for a pistol while im getting bit on the faceParticipant[quote=Blogstar]G-d we’re stupid.[/quote]
stupid? perhaps. i prefer lazy, uncaring, cold, distant, impatient, disgusted and lame.
Participantpepper spray and a knife, frankly seem better for reality.
consider this: an unarmed dirtbag is closing toward you rapidly. you’re armed. you could fumble to get your gun out and maybe get it out before he gets to you, maybe not. then what? you shoot an unarmed dude?
he gets to you before you get armed, of course he’s sneaky and fast, and slams your face into the car, instantly disorienting you. fight may be over.
alternatively, you quickly draw your belt pepper spray, have a shivworks clinchpick at the ready for stabbing, you spray the motherfucker, froma distance, not too much of a judgment call required, no potential murder charges witha dselfdefense claims.
knives by the belt and pepper spray and hyper alertness beat a gun in a holster on your leg. any day of the week.
Participantan article by a very thoughtful fellow who likes to carry a gun from harpers mag., my favoritest mag, 4 years ago…
Participant[quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.
Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?
The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
100 years ago we medicated our kids with tinctures of booze and opium. Doctors orders…
Probably that would ensure better drug compliance…
ParticipantThese mass shootings are unavoidable says only nation with mass shootings.
This week’s headline from the onion.
Absolutely….nothing we could possibly do….
-
AuthorPosts
