Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Ingot54

To Arm or to Disarm.

Recommended Posts

5-Year-Old Boy Killed Sister With Gun Made For Kids | ThinkProgress

 

I cannot blame the parents for this mishap. I am sure that they instructed the 5 year old to not shoot his 2 year old sister and he did it anyway. I do believe that the little girl was killed because she was unarmed. If she was also carrying a weapon, she could have protected herself from her brother.

Yes what was that mom thinking.

 

If she had dressed the little girl in a bullet-proof onesie hey who knows, maybe just maybe ......

 

+ + +

 

Here is a little snippet from CNN's coverage:

 

"It's just tragic," uncle David Mann told the CNN affiliate. "It's something that you can't prepare for."

 

Riddle said she is devastated, but comforted knowing that her granddaughter is in a better place.

 

"It was God's will. It was her time to go, I guess," she told WLEX. "I just know she's in heaven right now and I know she's in good hands with the Lord."

 

+ + +

 

If there is a god did he also intend to place this tragic event in the memory of the little boy to have when he grows up, "babykiller, babykiller"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not use tragic events to push the agenda against guns (I'm against gun ownership by the way) or to push some anti-God agenda.

 

It's tragic, guns shouldn't be so easily available, but there's no need to 'gloat' after an event, even if you're correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please do not use tragic events to push the agenda against guns (I'm against gun ownership by the way) or to push some anti-God agenda.

 

It's tragic, guns shouldn't be so easily available, but there's no need to 'gloat' after an event, even if you're correct.

Please don't tell me what to think or say and I will happily do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ironee

 

The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited; liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

 

George Tucker

weapons.JPG.2d9be3710c079089f78035a6c629a775.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard a story over the weekend. Criminals are targeting homes with America flags out front.

 

Because to paraphase Willie Sutton "that is where the guns are"

 

Hey buddy over here, git yer guns, no cost. Unintended consequences at work.

 

As long as gun owner is not home and layin' in wait for them.

 

Like the old post office joke. What does it mean when the flag is at half staff?

 

Means they are hiring.

 

Not quite Madison Avenue variety advertising but whatever works.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heard a story over the weekend. Criminals are targeting homes with America flags out front.

 

 

...bcse people with values are also more likely to have things 'of' value

 

rephrasing, not quoting, willie sutton...

 

Not quite Madison Avenue variety advertising but whatever works.

 

:) yep. those dumasses who fly the flag just need to put 'These premises protected by Smith and Wesson' decals up on their windows... much as the flag attracts 'casing the joint', these signs tend to repel...criminals de-target those homes quickly... willie sutton knows why...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...bcse people with values are also more likely to have things 'of' value

...criminals de-target those homes quickly...

 

Ok so my niece who could care less about guns ... either way - what she heard is wrong.

 

Thank you all knowing.

 

Straighten that out real quick.

 

:roll eyes:

 

BTW although Willie Sutton carried a gun, they were never loaded, so I'd say he might think differently.

 

Money in banks, guns in a "patriotic" homes. No-brainer for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

… more mooey reactive stungun…

…Wasn’t disagreeing with your post or making your “niece wrong”.

… was just extending it a bit ( … it’s not just guns in those homes with flags… there are also other things “of value” in them… sometimes )

and offering a bit of advice for dum patriots who do make themselves a more likely target by industriously flying a flag ( you can bring the odds back down and make yourself a less likely target if you use the decals…)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw :rofl:

 

Let me take a moment and say hi to the guys at the NSA and DHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is for sure: countries with banned guns have lower homicide rates, because some angry Joe cannot shot everyone up after he came back home from a bad day, drunk bottle of liquor and decided "hell with it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing is for sure: countries with banned guns have lower homicide rates, because some angry Joe cannot shot everyone up after he came back home from a bad day, drunk bottle of liquor and decided "hell with it".

 

The greatest factor impacting homicide rates is a country's policy on addictive drugs. Guns increase the instance of accidental death in all countries since, well, accidents happen and guns are difficult to store safely.

 

No doubt it is easier to kill someone by shooting them than by any other method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the political, purely pretentious ‘war against women’ and we have the real, truly global, war against women. The real war against women can only be won by women and men with guns.

 

It was not a paid guard, it was not a patrol officer, it was not a swat team, it certainly was not Reichssicherheitshauptamt (aka dhs.. or one of its sub agenturen - like the fbi). Rather, it was just a man with a gun who stopped the Oklahoma beheader from beheading another woman. If a man with a gun had not been there and had not shot him, Nolen would have finished his attack on a second female victim. And after that, who knows how many people he would have killed before some heimwehr workers arrived to ‘exterminate’ him, cordon off the area, and take care of the paperwork and coverups.

 

Yes, this is just one case… a case MSM and our gun grabbers are required to ignore or downplay (and secretly wish had gone wrong for the man with a gun). But using one case is ok. It was one case - a case more about debauched psychiatry than about unsuccessful gun control - what got this thread started long ago.

 

btw …the fake 'lies is truth' war against women and where it leads ultimately may have to be dealt with by women with guns too… :missy:

 

we now return you to your regularly scheduled bid monkey hft-ing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have the political, purely pretentious ‘war against women’ and we have the real, truly global, war against women. The real war against women can only be won by women and men with guns.

 

It was not a paid guard, it was not a patrol officer, it was not a swat team, it certainly was not Reichssicherheitshauptamt (aka dhs.. or one of its sub agenturen - like the fbi). Rather, it was just a man with a gun who stopped the Oklahoma beheader from beheading another woman. If a man with a gun had not been there and had not shot him, Nolen would have finished his attack on a second female victim. And after that, who knows how many people he would have killed before some heimwehr workers arrived to ‘exterminate’ him, cordon off the area, and take care of the paperwork and coverups.

 

Yes, this is just one case… a case MSM and our gun grabbers are required to ignore or downplay (and secretly wish had gone wrong for the man with a gun). But using one case is ok. It was one case - a case more about debauched psychiatry than about unsuccessful gun control - what got this thread started long ago.

 

btw …the fake 'lies is truth' war against women and where it leads ultimately may have to be dealt with by women with guns too… :missy:

 

we now return you to your regularly scheduled bid monkey hft-ing ;)

golf clubs work according to MM but who runs around with golf clubs unless we could talk all criminals into commiting their crimes at golf courses.....LOL :rofl: :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing is for sure: countries with banned guns have lower homicide rates, because some angry Joe cannot shot everyone up after he came back home from a bad day, drunk bottle of liquor and decided "hell with it".

Tell that to chicago.....or mexico..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"No Gun No Crime No Death No Violation"

Do anyone here agree with this??

 

Think now... do you really want to get us re-started on this?

 

re "No Gun No Crime No Death No Violation"

everyone here would like to agree with this... until they realize it’s about as stupid as “Just say no!”

...

11,208 firearm homicides per year in the US... guns bang

1,204,500 crunchy baby homicides per year in the US... no guns bang at all

 

... and

Online database of psychiatric drug-linked shootings launched by the Health Ranger... PsychDrugShooters.com - NaturalNews.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"No Gun No Crime No Death No Violation"

Do anyone here agree with this??

 

Getting rid of guns would not get rid of crime or violence.

 

Assuming you mean innocent and unnecessary death, then a more effective way of stopping innocent death would be to ban swimming pools when you consider the numbers involved.

 

The issue with either swimming pools or guns is the responsible use of each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2013 at 10:15 AM, zdo said:

ironee

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited; liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

George Tucker

weapons.JPG.2d9be3710c079089f78035a6c629a775.JPG

let's wade right on in - 'gun control' is not really about saving lives... just like BLM is not really about saving black lives...

 

Quote

 

After two Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies were shot and critically wounded on Saturday, Joe Biden warned, “Weapons of war have no place in our communities." And within just hours of the attack, Biden tweeted in praise of the original bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which lasted from 1994 to 2004. “These bans saved lives, and Congress should never have let them expire,” he wrote.

A handgun, not an assault rifle, was used to shoot the deputies. But it seems that Biden never misses an opportunity to deceptively complain about “weapons of war.”

In the past, Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris have applied this label to AR-15 semi-automatic rifles.  But these guns function exactly as small-game, semi-automatic hunting rifles. Though it looks like the M16 machine gun made famous in the Vietnam War, no military in the world uses the AR-15.

Gun control advocates commonly pose the question:

"Why do people need a semi-automatic AR-15 to go out and kill deer?"

The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. Semi-automatic weapons are also used to protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker. Or, for that matter, if they are facing multiple assailants.

What about Biden’s claims that the assault weapons ban saved lives?

Since the ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. The murder rate never returned to that level, and fell to 5.0 per 100,000 people by 2018.

If the ban had any effect, one would think that it would reduce the number of murders committed with rifles. But the percentage of firearm murders that were committed with rifles was at 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, and averaged 4.9% from 1995 to 2004. In the 10 years after the ban, the figure averaged just 3.9%. This pattern is the opposite of what gun control advocates predicted.

Many academic studies have examined the original federal assault weapons ban. 

They consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime. Clinton administration-funded research by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth confirmed as much in a 1997 report for the National Institute of Justice.

“The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero),” they wrote.

Koper and Roth suggested at the time that it might be possible to find a benefit after the ban had been in effect for more years. In 2004, they published a follow-up NIJ study with fellow criminologist Dan Woods.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” they concluded.

“And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Since the ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. The murder rate never returned to that level, and fell to 5.0 per 100,000 people by 2018.

If the ban had any effect, one would think that it would reduce the number of murders committed with rifles. But the percentage of firearm murders that were committed with rifles was at 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, and averaged 4.9% from 1995 to 2004. In the 10 years after the ban, the figure averaged just 3.9%. This pattern is the opposite of what gun control advocates predicted.

Many academic studies have examined the original federal assault weapons ban.  They consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime. Clinton administration-funded research by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth confirmed as much in a 1997 report for the National Institute of Justice. “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero),” they wrote.  Koper and Roth suggested at the time that it might be possible to find a benefit after the ban had been in effect for more years. In 2004, they published a follow-up NIJ study with fellow criminologist Dan Woods. “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” they concluded. “And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Gun control advocates often cite work by Louis Klarevas, but his non-peer-reviewed methodologies are highly flawed. For one thing, Klarevas looks only at the total number of mass public shootings, whether they were committed with assault weapons or with other types of guns. While the share of mass public shootings that utilized assault weapons fell during the ban, it fell even more sharply in the 10 years after the ban ended in 2004. And any reduction that the ban caused in attacks with assault weapons may simply have meant more attacks with other types of guns.

...

Biden’s tweet also touted large-capacity ammunition magazine bans. Contrary to common perception, ordinary hunting rifles can hold just as large a magazine as "assault weapons.” Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. Magazines are basically metal boxes with springs, and are easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines that could hold more than 10 bullets, yet had no effect on crime rates.

Biden is making it clear that gun control is near the top of his agenda. So it’s little wonder that gun control zealot Michael Bloomberg just pledged to spend at least $100 million in Florida alone on behalf of the Biden campaign. But no matter how much Biden wishes it were true, guns bans won’t make American’s safer. With Democrats promising to eliminate the Senate filibuster if they win, gun bans will be an integral part of the radical agenda that they will quickly enact. To his credit, Biden is not hiding it.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/16/bidens_gun_control_claims_at_odds_with_crime_stats_144221.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • “Self-evident truths” ( btw the ‘trading’ industry runs on a lot of these “self-evident truths” too) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-make-america-jeffersonian-again and a study in current “defactualization” https://consortiumnews.com/2020/10/19/patrick-lawrence-the-damage-russiagate-has-done/
    • Overtrading either trading too big or too often – is the most common reason why forex traders fail. Overtrading might be caused by unrealistically high profit goals, market addiction, or insufficient capitalization.
    • Yes, i do trust my broker. LMFX offers are very good and attractive. They have high leverage for newbie so do try with opening Demo account with LMFX. 
    • EUR/CHF IS IN AN UPTREND, MAY REACH LEVEL 1.0730 Key Resistance Levels: 1.0800, 1.0900, 1.1000 Key Support Levels: 1.0600, 1.0500, 1.0400 EUR/CHF Price Long-term Trend: Ranging EUR/CHF has been on a downward move since September 25. On October 15 downtrend; a retraced candle body tested 78.6 % Fibonacci retracement level. This indicates that the pair will fall and reach a low of 1.272 and later reverse. EUR/CHF – Daily Chart Daily Chart Indicators Reading: The pair is at level 41 of the Relative Strength Index period 14. It implies that the market is in a downtrend and below the centerline 50. The 50-day SMA and 21-day SMA are sloping horizontally. It indicates the sideways trend. EUR/CHF Medium-term Trend: Bullish On the 4-hour chart, the pair is also rising. On October 20, a retraced candle body tested 50 Fibonacci retracement level. This also indicates that the pair will rise and reach level 2.0 Fibonacci extension. That is the low level of 1.0730. EUR/CHF – 30 Min Chart 4  Hour Chart Indicator Reading The 50-day and 21-day SMAs are sloping sideways indicating the previous trend. The pair is below the 30% range of the daily stochastic. It indicates that the market is in a bearish momentum. General Outlook for EUR/CHF EUR/CHF is rising after breaking the initial resistance. The price rebounded at level 1.0714 to resume the upward move. According to the Fibonacci tool, the market will reach level of 1.0730.   Source: https://learn2.trade 
    • EURUSD RISKS DEEPER DECLINE AT 1.1800 LEVEL ON SURGE IN EUROPE COVID-19 CASES EURUSD Price Analysis – October 26 Growing fears of a surge in Europe Covid-19 cases may slowdown economic recovery as new infections trigger stricter measures and prompt investors into safety. EURUSD risks a deeper decline at the 1.1800 level as buyers repeatedly failed to make a sustained break above the daily cloud top around the 1.1850 level. Key Levels Resistance Levels: 1.2150, 1.2011, 1.1917 Support Levels: 1.1807, 1.1612, 1.1422 EURUSD Long-term Trend: Ranging EURUSD is under pressure, trading near the 1.1810 level, and is in danger of further falling. The EURUSD rally appears to have hit a decent barrier at recent highs around 1.1880. A break of this area is expected to push the pair higher towards the 1.1917 area as the bullish trend is expected to resume at the key level. In a broader context, the rise from 1.0635 is seen as the third phase of the pattern from 1.0339 (low). A further rally towards the cluster resistance at 1.2011 can be seen. This will remain a preferable case as long as the resistance at 1.1422 is held and turned into support. EURUSD Short-term Trend: Ranging EURUSD intraday trend stays neutral as consolidation from 1.1880 regions continues. Nevertheless, further growth stays in favor while maintaining the support level of 1.1685. The break into 1.1880 regions will be a test at the 1.2011 high. The 4 hours chart shows that the pair is developing below the moderately bearish 5 and 13 moving averages. A move below 1.1800 is needed to mark an immediate (minor) high for a pullback to the bottom of the short-term channel seen at 1.1725. On the other hand, a breakout of 1.1685 is likely to extend the corrective pattern from 1.2011 by one more phase. Intraday bias will return to the downside towards 1.1612 and below. Source: https://learn2.trade 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.