Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Yeah, except one of them is going to win in November.
The other is going to fade into the history books.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How about a shocking notion?
How about we have and vote for individual candidates based entirely upon their individual, not-for-sale platforms?
We all talk about getting big-money out of politics, but then we fall all over ourselves to vote for one of the two big-money candidates every time.
Of course, it's just basic game theory that we are in this rut. It would take a majority of us individually chosing to simultaneously do the non-game-theortically sound thing to make a change. But that change could indeed happen literally overnight.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Yeah, apogee, which is why the non-game-theoretically sound thing is not sound. But in one election cycle we could change the game.
If only enough of us were willing to do the "unsound" thing.
I'm game. I'm gonna do it.
Maybe eventually it will catch on.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Blah, blah, blah.
Howzabout you propose such at thing at a time when your preferred Party is looking good in the polls, and will likely win?
Right now, it just looks like desperation.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Of course, you did not explain how the AVERAGE (vast majority) of Californians are supposed to defend themselves... you know, not being as scintillatingly BAD-ass as you.
No explanation required, the vast (overwhelmingly) majority don't "need" to protect themselves with guns, because they don't live in the same state of paranoia as you.
Hock one of your guns and buy a library card and do a little research on just how much danger the AVERAGE person is in, in California. Then go state by state.
Then get yourself a mirror and stand in front of it with one of your weapons and watch your machismo grow.
I never said I was a badass (which I may or may not be, it's irrelevant here). What I said was I've never been in a situation where a gun was necessary. Neither have the vast majority of folks in California and the U.S.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What is my preferred party?
I would have voted for Bernie, seriously. So, don't call me partisan.
I'm many things, many of them reprehensible, but, ackkk, gag, not that!
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
You are just like the genius at the recent town hall meeting that asked the President, "why are you restricting sales and ownership of our guns". The Presidents response was good and applies to today's ruling
His answer expemplified the disconnect between the average US citizen and the elected elite who are surrounded by armed guards all day.
"Oh, I'm not looking to take away your guns, I only want to take away guns from criminals. And oh by the way, I get to decide who qualifies as a criminal" "So, if you have a gun, guess what - you're a criminal."
"How do you spot the precise point where a society is standing at the back of the van and the State has the handcuffs out?"
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
So Esco, stop dodging the question. Are you going to vote for Trump or not?
And why we're at it...how about you, mb?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
94 Plutonium Pu
95 Americium Am
96 Curium Cm
97 Berkelium Bk
98 Californium Cf
99 Einsteinium Es
100 Fermium Fm
101 Mendelevium Md
102 Nobelium No
103 Lawrencium Lr
104 Rutherfordium Rf
105 Dubnium Db
106 Seaborgium Sg
107 Bohrium Bh
108 Hassium Hs
109 Meitnerium Mt
110 Darmstadtium Ds
111 Roentgenium Rg
112 Copernicium Cn
113 Nihonium Nh
114 Flerovium Fl
115 Moscovium Mc
116 Livermorium Lv
117 Tennessine Ts
118 Oganesson Og
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
do a little research on just how much danger the AVERAGE person is in, in California
Ahh, I understand now.
Because the odds are "low" (so some research says), that means that NOBODY should be able to exercise their constitutional right, much less their right of self-defense. The masterminds on the left know exactly what the statistical line is below which people have no need of or use for that ridiculous 18th and 19th century "right."
Did I get it right?
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
For the record, the average citizen living in Los Angeles (or other large city) is WAY more likely to be killed than a police officer. And they carry guns all day long.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Are you going to vote for Trump or not?
I told you just a few posts ago. I'm going to do the "unsound" thing and vote third party. I haven't decided who yet. Just anybody, virtually at random, who is not Trump or Clinton.
I'll cast my vote against the two parties.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Indeed, Werner.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Sorry, mb...missed that post.
Third Party, eh? I understand the sentiment, but glad to know Hillary will be the benefactor.
Hope you sleep better that night. Heh!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I've never been in a situation where a gun was necessary. Neither have the vast majority of folks in California and the U.S.
That 'logic' also applies to people who buy insurance.
I don't need it but the state requires me to get it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Oh, I know I'm getting screwed in this election cycle. Too bad most others don't realize the same thing, even if their "preferred candidate" wins.
But the number of us willing to get screwed in order to take a small shot at genuine change will have to increase. Or we're all truly screwed. And Clinton is not gonna save you from that outcome, left or right though you might lean.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
That 'logic' also applies to people who buy insurance.
It also applies to cops, the fire department, and all of the efforts to keep us safe from terrorists.
The vast majority of people will never need any of the above. So, why have/pay-for such extravagances?
For example, I've never needed a fire department in my life. Everywhere I've lived, no need. (I'm just that bad-ass.)
So, why should I have to pay for a fire department that is relatively rarely needed and used by relatively very few people, especially when my personal opinion is that those people needing a fire department were in the wrong place at the wrong time or doing something irresponsible? Right? I mean, that's your argument, zBrown.
That extravagance costs real money, and that's money I'd rather spend on GUNS!
Bwahaaha
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
That 'logic' also applies to people who buy insurance.
I don't need it but the state requires me to get it.
Someone is requiring you to have a gun? What state is that?
Am J Public Health. 2014 Oct;104(10):1912-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302042. Epub 2014 Aug 14.
The relationship between gun ownership and stranger and nonstranger firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010.
Siegel M1, Negussie Y, Vanture S, Pleskunas J, Ross CS, King C 3rd.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
We examined the relationship between gun ownership and stranger versus nonstranger homicide rates.
METHODS:
Using data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 states for 1981 to 2010, we modeled stranger and nonstranger homicide rates as a function of state-level gun ownership, measured by a proxy, controlling for potential confounders. We used a negative binomial regression model with fixed effects for year, accounting for clustering of observations among states by using generalized estimating equations.
RESULTS:
We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval=1.009, 1.019).
CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings challenge the argument that gun ownership deters violent crime, in particular, homicides.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Right? I mean, that's your argument, zBrown.
Nope. Your words again.
Nobody other than you and the NRA is telling everyone they need to have a gun.
I can see how some would feel the need to have one, though.
Statistics show that there is very little "benefit" to having a gun, but even California is not denying me a right to own two.
There is a very strong societal benefit to insurance programs (despite their inefficiency) and that is (albeit probably unfairly) distributed across the population.
Not so guns.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
What MB wants is the unfettered right for everyone to carry weapons, concealed or openly anywhere they want. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are REASONABLE limits to gun possession. Maybe if MB was reasonable he would understand.
In an atempt to be reasonable maybe we could look at violent crime rates as they relate to gun ownership. Go ahead, google it. Wouldn't a national study on gun violence be a good thing? Problem is the Republicans have effectively banned gun violence research wih Federal money. Why? because they can not handle the truth
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!