tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post6445002453224114772..comments2009-05-10T22:59:24.610-04:00Marknoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-48506001057882868482009-05-10T22:59:00.000-04:002009-05-10T22:59:00.000-04:00everson related some stats that remind us that absolute numbers can be deceptive without an understanding of their context. Even in the wild west of Texas, the number of shootings is not a massive number. Too many, perhaps, but likely not nearly as many as would have occurred with the general knowledge that anyone who defends himself/ herself would face worse penalties than the actual perp. Personally, despite the President's amusement, I'm really scared of any group of punks twice my size who are terrorizing me. I generally work pretty hard to avoid dangerous situations, but the unknown of whether I am armed probably causes some thugs to adopt the same caution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-47160116563766303142009-04-13T19:54:00.000-04:002009-04-13T19:54:00.000-04:00I&#39;m sure that if the forefathers could have looked into the future at todays society there would be no 2nd amendment. This fallacy of &#39;protecting&#39; ones family is a joke. In the real world murderers, burglars, rapists do not announce they will break the laws. <br />&#39;Quick honey, there&#39;s a burglar coming in the house, lets have a shootout (forget about the kids in the other room &amp; stray crossfire). <br />Lets arm every student so they can be prepared for the next Columbine. I&#39;m sure OK corral shootouts will make everyone feek at ease.<br />Face it, the NRA &amp; gun manufactures are in bed with another. It&#39;s big business. Follow the money &amp; the powerful gun lobbyists. Its their job to instill fear amongst the the citizens and make them think a gun is the cure for all yr fears.<br />If two California Swat members chasing an armed cop killer get killed I just wonder how all the Wyatt Earps out there think they are so damn good at defending there own safety &amp; others . <br />Everson, you&#39;re an idot. Media &#39;loves to fill air time.....&#39;. Hmm yes I&#39;m sure the greiving victims in the latest mass shooting at an immigrant Birningham services center are right with you.<br />Lookout Everson, I&#39;m going to fire my emphysema at you while I reload my heart attack. <br />Unfortunately this country has gone beyond ever controlling guns. It will always be a part of the wild west culture.<br />Shakyshot, go find a war somewhere in the world so you can then get to play shoot the bad guys first. Comparing a world war with guns in homes??? Where&#39;s the logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-2789587134415351832009-04-13T11:06:00.000-04:002009-04-13T11:06:00.000-04:00This is why people don't talk about guns in politics. Because people will never change their position.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how you argue with facts<BR/>a 10 second google search turned this up<BR/><BR/>We're #1 (per capita)<BR/><BR/>http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there is an excuse. But anyone who argues more guns = less deaths has an interesting logic.TraderMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241756200482130281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-15964404074979416462009-04-13T11:03:00.000-04:002009-04-13T11:03:00.000-04:00Fantastic blog by the way! Big help seeing the thought process of other investors...eversonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04469156943822459477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-6263529090656748062009-04-13T10:57:00.000-04:002009-04-13T10:57:00.000-04:00Some facts to think about on guns:<BR/><BR/>http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20adjusted%20death%20rates%20for%20113%20selected%20causes%20by%20race%20and%20sex%202005.html<BR/><BR/>This is the CDC's stats on death rates per 100,000 people in the US as of 2005.<BR/><BR/>All causes: 798.8<BR/><BR/>Suicide: 10.9<BR/> with a gun: 5.7<BR/> no gun: 5.2<BR/><BR/>Homicide: 6.1<BR/> with a gun: 4.2<BR/> no gun: 1.2<BR/><BR/>And now for perspective:<BR/><BR/>Car accidents: 115.2<BR/>Falls: 6.4<BR/>Accidental poisoning: 7.9<BR/>Renal Failure: 14<BR/>Pneumonia: 19.7<BR/>Chronic liver (includes cirrhosis) : 4.7<BR/>Emphysema: 4.6<BR/>Heart attack: 18.9<BR/>Hypertension: 9.4<BR/>Leukemia: 7.1<BR/>HIV: 4.2<BR/><BR/>I would submit that the system as is is working fairly well. Could it be improved? Like all government programs everywhere -- of course!<BR/><BR/>I think that guns are highly subject to the availability bias.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic<BR/><BR/>This is the same tendency that drives our fear of dying in a plane crash while driving to the airport in a feeling of complete 'safety'. (Auto death rate of 115 versus 0.6 for air travel).<BR/><BR/>Gun deaths are tragic (and senseless). The media loves to fill air time with them and as a result we tend to overreact to them. Who wants to turn on the news and see a story about a guy falling down the stairs to his death? Not so exciting...eversonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04469156943822459477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-32441770650237776822009-04-13T09:56:00.000-04:002009-04-13T09:56:00.000-04:00I lost a lot of respect for you today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-66230620044267917802009-04-13T05:33:00.000-04:002009-04-13T05:33:00.000-04:00I won't get into the political discussions because our "ancestors" also promoted slavery and did not allow women to vote. Eventually people evolve. I'd also ask openly how Western countries where people don't have large amounts of gun per capita (there are many) survive. I'd argue their governments treat them better than ours - at least fiscally so its an interesting treat that the arguement that we need guns to keep gubberment in check doesn't seem to work either. <BR/><BR/>But anyhow to Anon .. I am long SWHC so I can support ShakyShot's proposal for a gun for 1 in ever 10 Americans hand - I assumed we were already there but I'm shooting for 1 in 3. If 1 in 10 can cause us this much safety just imagine what 1 in 3 can do ;)<BR/><BR/>Next I will begin to talk about religion ... lol.TraderMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241756200482130281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-12631539645278882882009-04-13T05:21:00.000-04:002009-04-13T05:21:00.000-04:00So Mark, are you long or short on gun related shares?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2335748440449035592.post-45474464512748708612009-04-13T02:54:00.000-04:002009-04-13T02:54:00.000-04:00Why is it that those who daily benefit from the First Amendment are the first to recommend infringement of the Second Amendment? So, the companies that made the guns that saved your First Amendment by enabling the winning two world wars are "socially irresponsible". By extension, so then were our ancestors that carried those guns and died in battle. Out here in the "gun culture" we view "irresponsible" as being unwilling to protect your family. And also irresponsible is proposing as fact totally twisted extrapolations such as "a gun in every hand" is the current "policy". If just one in ten law abiding citizens were armed, the mass killings would be curtailed. No, the current policy is to make it difficult to LEGALLY own guns and extremely easy to illegally procure guns.ShakyShotnoreply@blogger.com