Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting notion, but wrong again. I have chosen to ignore you and a few others along the way many times, people who simply repeat themselves with the same noise seemingly mostly to annoy, single minded, micro focused, unable to get off their shtick kind of thing. I do not, however, put anyone on ignore, since that to me is also childish and just not my style. I'd rather read all the comments and focus on the ones that seem most worth addressing, but not more than three times as a rule. First time waste of time, shame on me, second time too, but third time..., I don't think so. I just don't have that time to waste, though I have to admit I'm not sure the time taken to make even one key stroke in this forum is anything but a waste of time...
So, you ignore yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
As to what makes for credibility and what doesn't, again I don't think one needs to be a medical professional to decide matters of health care policy or a military professional to be Commander-in-Chief, or a financial expert to be a CEO. A CPA may know a financial term that most others don't, but this does not mean a person can't do well to understand finances in general. Despite those differences in knowledge about such terms, a CEO can most often know better what to do with the financial information provided by financial experts than financial experts can! Why they become CEOs, maybe even if they use the wrong financial term, if you can possibly fathom that!
What a false argument, yes, I'm sure a CPA may know some obscure word that others don't but the basic daily words used, they will know, hence clip and magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Here again I am amazed this needs explaining, and no doubt more waste of time, but perhaps for others not so hung up and ego-driven about proving themselves gun experts, this is actually a very common misconception for many, something I have many times helped professionals better understand in my work. Most people confuse the importance of certain types of knowledge and/or experience with that of leadership and judgment. This is in large part why so few people are actually leaders of other people. They don't understand what matters most. They get hung up on details, can't see or process the "big picture." They are myopic.
You have no big picture though, you continue to ask the same question, then when you get the answer you don't want, you change the question slightly....and tell people they are wrong....
Funny, you say details, well, details are what drive an honest discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Ultimately I agree, no one is better off using terms that demonstrate a necessary level of understanding about any subject, but what is necessary versus quite sufficient enough is a matter of opinion that most people don't well recognize or understand. If you can't understand this fundamental, please don't expect me to take more time to explain. Perhaps for someone else who can in any case...
I would expect an answer like this from a person such as you, sufficient and necessary is the difference in understanding what you are talking about and not, you are in the "not" area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Just as any blockhead can or should be able to understand that quote, for example, regardless whether the term clip or magazine was used.
No, see here is where you are wrong, we fully understood what they were saying, the credibility of his comment and knowledge goes out the door though, I'm not surprised you do not have the ability to understand that.
I'm not the one having a hard time understanding year over year trends. You are.
Comment 915 doesn't address it either. You DO understand what a year over year trend is, right? If murders overall were declining by 10 per year each year, and I spent $500 million and the decline is still 10 per year, that's a pretty epic fail.
Year over year trends, yes, again not all that harder to understand than most things gun related, despite those wanting to tout their gun knowledge ad nauseam as if "rocket science."
How about comment 880 then? Note, I'm trying not to simply repeat myself, like you are doing...
You suggesting the quality of life doesn't go down for you and everyone else when we hear about another mass shooting? Do tell...
Why would it affect my quality of life? It makes me mad and sad, but crazy people have always killed others. None of us is going to change that and it has nothing to do with guns.
I've followed this issue for a while now, also by way of more than a few gun threads, and though I have not been altogether against gun control, I have come to accept there isn't much that can be done to stop gun violence in America or even to lessen the body count by any acceptable level. I am no gun expert, and I have been chastised for having an opinion though I am not an expert, even for relying on experts instead. However, as compared to many gun enthusiasts in these threads, for example, I just tend to pay closer attention to other experts that tend to make more sense without all the gun obsession detail down to the patina. Accordingly, rather than go round and round those gun circles, I'm glad to have this to offer as my position. IOWs, I tend to agree almost entirely with what is written here. Not that the "answers" put forth here are altogether satisfying, but about the best we can do I think...
"What can be done to address this much larger toll of gun violence, which leaves nearly 100,000 Americans killed or wounded each year?"
The idea of focusing on inner city gang related violence, and I would add drug related violence has merit. The rest of it is a faux solution by people that refuse to recognize what the real issues are.
If law enforcement was allowed to stomp inner city gang and drug culture absolutely flat most gun violence would cease. The US would have a gun violence rate similar to Denmark. The unfortunate truth is that it won't happen because the politically correct portion of the country refuses to hold individuals responsible for their actions.
Year over year trends, yes, again not all that harder to understand than most things gun related, despite those wanting to tout their gun knowledge ad nauseam as if "rocket science."
How about comment 880 then? Note, I'm trying not to simply repeat myself, like you are doing...
Comment 881 addressed 880. Seems like you have some catching up to do.
The reason we have gun deaths in America, is because we have 320 million people. With that number of people, there WILL be incidences of violence that kill multiple people. If guns didn't exist, the attacks would be with knives, bombs, cars/trucks, airplanes, poisons, etc.
When Big Government tries to disarm the citizenry in order to "save" us, we are actually much more in danger. A psychotic attacker with a knife can kill 10 or 20 people--as just happened in Japan--but if a single law-abiding citizen in the crowd was carrying a handgun, the criminal could be stopped before he hurt ANYONE. It should be obvious that the ability to cause harm to others, is not the REASON people cause harm to others. Carrying a gun is no more lethal than driving a car--any driver could drive into a crowd of people if he wanted to. You can't take away the ability of the citizen to cause harm, because there are infinite ways to cause harm. But if we let Big Government take away the ability of the citizen to defend himself (and his family and property), we will ALL be at the mercy of both criminals and politicians--with the latter being far more dangerous.
I've followed this issue for a while now, also by way of more than a few gun threads, and though I have not been altogether against gun control, I have come to accept there isn't much that can be done to stop gun violence in America or even to lessen the body count by any acceptable level. I am no gun expert, and I have been chastised for having an opinion though I am not an expert, even for relying on experts instead. However, as compared to many gun enthusiasts in these threads, for example, I just tend to pay closer attention to other experts that tend to make more sense without all the gun obsession detail down to the patina. Accordingly, rather than go round and round those gun circles, I'm glad to have this to offer as my position. IOWs, I tend to agree almost entirely with what is written here. Not that the "answers" put forth here are altogether satisfying, but about the best we can do I think...
"What can be done to address this much larger toll of gun violence, which leaves nearly 100,000 Americans killed or wounded each year?"
First we need a solid analysis of what motivates people to use guns whereas they weren't so strongly inclined 60 years ago. What is their complaint? Figure that out and we have a place to start.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
