tvashtarkatena

Have to agree and personally I think it's sad that in these days, the average man or woman in this country doesn't have the slightest idea how to operate a firearm, let alone defend their right to security. Makes you wonder just how "bad" it would be to ship a few million of our new generation over to the near-eastern theater for a little weapons training... might even be a little safer (as it seems). I just wonder what kind of firepower they're willing to put in the hands of the shepherds, in the interest of keeping the peace. Although this is a total troll... 'Sad'? The average man or woman in America is smart enough to realize that good neighbors, dogs, and good locks, and good street sense are much more effective for 'personal security' than guns. The average man or woman in America also gets their meat at Safeway. From a health and longevity standpoint, the average man or woman in America would be much better off focusing on diet and exercise than the wonderful world of guns.

Studies also show that the vast majority of guns involved in violent crimes originate from federally licensed dealers that sell without a store front or proper record keeping. Shut these bastards down, require a valid storefront and proper record keeping for licensed dealers, plus a backround check and waiting period for purchasers (already in place in many states) and you've addressed a significant chunk of the ease of availability problem. The fact that much of the public is unaware of this problem has more to do with a long term program of obfuscation put forth by pro-gun legislators and the NRA's propoganda than anything else. The NRA does not lobby for a reduction in gun violence; they lobby for continued public confusion on the issue so that they can preserve zero infringement policies. Every one of the pro-gun arguments on this forum that I've read so far (except for KKK...he has not arguments, just his typical Fuck Yous) originated in with NRA's editorial staff (Dad was a member; I read the mag while growing up). That is not to say that the NRA does not support and educate their members on handling guns safely; they do. The reforms proposed here shouldn't impinge most lawful gun enthusiasts too terribly much. As for violent overthrow of the government, should it ever be required, dream on. Unless our military stages a coups, fuggedaboutit.

Studies also show that the vast majority of guns involved in violent crimes originate from federally licensed dealers that sell without a store front or proper record keeping. Shut these bastards down, require a valid storefront and proper record keeping for licensed dealers, plus a backround check and waiting period for purchasers (already in place in many states) and you've addressed a significant chunk of the ease of availability problem. This shouldn't impinge most lawful gun enthusiasts too terribly much. As for violent overthrow of the government, should it ever be required, dream on. Unless our military stages a coups, fuggedaboutit.

Studies show higher lethality rates in the US that are closely correlated to the availability of guns. This includes accidents, domestic violence (three of the largest slices of the pie), and suicide, as well as 'street crime'. Lots and lots of kids, wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends are killed by someone close to them...usually by guns. This is the 800 pound gorilla that gun advocates rarely like to talk about. They much prefer to focus on fantasy scenarios of saving that old lady from the street gang or blowing away some 17 year old kid in their living rooms to save the big screen TV. how many of the folks who advocated the original 2nd amendment would approve of the current situation i wonder?

Hope springs eternal. Hopefully it will be you trying. Now there's an interesting implied threat for the moderators to take note of....

No, making a bomb is neither easier (than plunking down your credit card at the gun store or your cash an a gun swap), nor is it spontaneous. The psychology behind a bombing is also very different. Finally, making bombs is also notoriously dangerous to the inventor. It should come as no surprise, then, that bombings are much rarer than shootings. Apples and burgers, amigo.

Hope springs eternal.

The viewpoint that The Imuscide was somehow a watershed moment is a bit naive. It was more like a concatenation of events that resulted in a rare but perfect media storm. 80's era shock jock meets social climate change meets ratings losing company meets really slow news weekend meets extremely sympathetic and undeserving target of insult with a dash of Sharpton and Co. It's a story about a company firing a radio DJ who pulls in $15 million in revenues a year. That's a chunk of change, but barely a line item on CBS's balance sheet. Ie, not a very big story in the scheme of things, but hey, what else was the country going to talk about at Easter Dinner? The only thing that made this story a remotely social issue, really, is that Imus made his remark on public airwaves licensed by the FCC. Still, those who argue for his firing (as anything other than an at will employment business decision on the part of CBS) might think further about the implications of such actions should the political climate change. What if a radio personality gets fired for going against the social tide by, say, critizing the war or defending muslims? All the same principles apply. By this reasoning I'm very leary to jump on the lynch Imus bandwagon (full disclosure; I hadn't heard of him before the story broke, and have never heard his program). And I'm dead against a government agency regulating this kind of speech. Don't like what's on? Then turn the fucking thing off. Meanwhile, back at the studio, other shock jocks will continue to say what they want, although they'll probably drop 'nappy headed hos' from their repetoires, until their schticks become too stale to make the ratings. Cable/Broadband, happily a zone where freedom of speech still survives, continues to eat broadcast alive. It's bidness as usual.

To the 'unfettered ownership' crowd: As long as admit that you are trading off a much increased death and injury rate from guns (accidents, suicides, and assaults) and you're willing to accept that price (that others, and perhaps someday you or someone around you pay) to have your guns anytime you want them, fine. If, however, you argue that there wouldn't be as many violent deaths or serious injuries if guns were more difficult to come by, you're self-delusional and, at least in my eyes, probably not the brightest bulb on the marquee. Even if the level of violence remained the same, guns are so much more lethal than any other weapon that the death/serious injury rate from guns would plummet if their numbers were decreased. Guns are also an 'impulsive' weapon. Bludgeoning and cutting weapons not so much so. It's much, much easier to shoot someone from a distance than to lethally attack them any other way. Again, the decreased availability of this option would result in decreased severity and lethality of person to person violence. The statistics back this up, but who in their right mind would seriously argue against the obvious? It's really, really hard to kill 22 people with a machete and a baseball bat.

I propose a new calendar: BIBD (Before IB Disaster) and AIBD. It was this watershed moment, when the world held it's breath, that spawned the MLU madness that is currently robbing our freedoms far more effectively than any terrorists could ever dream of doing!

If Al Gore had half a conscience he'd be organizing Earth Aid Routes!

Redwoods!

I'd like a Via Ferrata, but I can only afford a Subaru.

Uncomfortable? Ask a starving baby gorilla that depends on tender lichen for it's sustenance!

And how dare any of you accuse deeply concerned environmental advocates such as myself, who have spent so much valuable time trying to reverse the destructive tide of bolts, of a neurotic, masturbatory effort to satisfy my need to force other climbers to conform to my obviously superior ethics? How many of you walk the path of purity from your grass hut to the trailhead, as I do, stepping gently to avoid crushing any mites or redwood seedlings that may cross my path? How many of you have lovingly carried small baggies filled with soil and lichen to fill the bolt, no BULLET holes, so heartlessly punched into Mother Nature's temples of rock?

Where will this visual assault on the purity of Mother Nature end? Shall we spray paint the Grand Canyon safety orange? Turn Crater Lake into a laser lit computer controlled fountain? St. Helens into a NASCAR track? And the lichens? What of the lichens that have been lost to the unsatiated appetite of the drill?

I, for one, cannot believe any of you would treat this issue in any manner other than with the gravity it deserves. Humanity stands at the brink of the abyss, staring down the loaded chuck of a gas powered drill into a dismal, bolt-choked future.

We must all spend every waking minute chopping bolts, starting now, if we are to avert a global catastrophe. There is absolutely nothing more important one can do with one's time at this late juncture.

This is the most important issue of our time. Anyone who does not care about how bolting is destroying the planet should look a crying mother gorilla whose baby has just been killed by a fallen redwood in the eyes.

Every hour you spend not chopping bolts is an hour of life lost for a redwood tree.

Bolts are the number one cause of global warming and gorilla infant mortality.

Every time you clip a bolt, Hitler kills a baby gorilla.

I like watching angry little things hit other angry little things.

Hair pie

Hair pie