Guns are for babies.

^Why did the Empire leave Tattoine alone? Because it was full of armed-to-the-teeth creatures. We can't say the same of un-armed Naboo or all the other oppressed ones. 

The T wrote: ^Why did the Empire leave Tattoine alone? Because it was full of armed-to-the-teeth creatures. We can't say the same of un-armed Naboo or all the other oppressed ones.

Negoba wrote: The T wrote: ^Why did the Empire leave Tattoine alone? Because it was full of armed-to-the-teeth creatures. We can't say the same of un-armed Naboo or all the other oppressed ones.    Or the fact that it was a Force-forsaken sandy rock.   Naboo was green and lush and who wouldn't kick out those Jar Jar things and just take it?

The Gungan tragedy leaves us useful lessons: don't become so obnoxious that you might deserve to be kicked out of your own territory even in a way closely resembling tyranny. 

The T wrote: How is it when you compare not with other countries but with the same country over time? Did the UK have much more gun-related deaths when gun control laws were less strict (whenever that was)? Was the rate of gun deaths in the US higher or lower when gun control laws were more strict?

No idea. Times were different then, more "cowboys" died from being thrown from their horses and/or drowned crossing rivers than in gun-fights - I suspect that now they use Pick-up trucks and not horses the stats are different. (he said glibly). The UK was never the Wild West and the UK has been reducing gun ownership slowly over the past 100 years, the effect of one piece of legislation can take several years (decades even) to produce a statisitc change in the right direction - the judgment of whether it is effective depends on when you look and what you're looking for. For example reduce the number of legal guns and the number of deaths from illegal guns will increase and the number of deaths from legal guns will decrease - that's pretty much a predictable inevitability - but by reducing the supply of new (legal) guns into the market the availability of illegal guns will reduce in the long term - eventually the number of deaths from illegal guns will decrease too. When you take the statistic determines whether you paint the legislation as a failure or a success, and that's in someway determined by whether you want the legislation to succeed or not.

Negoba wrote: I don't own a gun because I think the owning of the thing would do me more damage than any supposed protection it would provide. It certainly would add more to my already ridiculous paranoia and suspiciousness.   But that's just me. You all do what you want. I got my light saber and tin hat.

Is the force with you? 

Today in US shooting news:

Taft Union school shooting: 'Mom, hurry, there's blood everywhere'

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/taft-union-high-school-shooting-blood.html

18 or 80 die a day here, who the hell cares?



http://www.politicususa.com/shooting-california-school-sheriff-monitoring-campus.html

If everyone were just packing heat it would just like the movies.  The good guy would get the bad guy.



Edited by Slartibartfast - January 10 2013 at 15:08

I hate politics, this is why

The conservative in me:We need to protect ourselves from Psychos

The liberal in me:No gun is needed to protect myself from Psychos

The real me: Just doesn't really care cuz we are all gonna die one day

f****** politics

^I wouldn't like the camera above the door either.