Gyroscopic Investing

What if I told everyone that I knew of an extremely dangerous thing. It has the power to kill instantly whatever it hits and it can strike from a distance. Some of the people it hits don't die, but most do, and the few that live have severe health issues afterward. No one "needs" this thing to live yet it's ubiquitous across the United States. This thing kills approximately 50 Americans per year.

Has anyone figured out what this "thing" is? It could be two things that essentially meet the exactly criteria and kill approximately the same number of Americans each year.

Of course, I'm talking about assault weapons and lightning. It turns out you're actually slightly more likely to get hit and die from a lightning strike in the US than an "assault weapon."

Don't believe me? Hear it from the most anti-gun person's mouth herself, Diane Feinstein, who today in her press conference announced that 350 Americans have been killed by assault weapons since 2004. Approximately 400 Americans were killed by lightning over that same period of time.

Yet, it's our President's #1 Objective in 2013 to stop "assault weapons" in what will be the most uphill political battle of all time, even moreso than universal healthcare. Anyone else find this to be obvious distraction from the $16 Trillion in debt, and counting, that the US is in?

I'm stealing that for my Facebook page. 

According to the CDC's data, during that same time period:

307,521 died in motor vehicle collisions
265,933 were poisoned
162,321 fell to their death
104,513 suffocated
84,149 were murdered with any kind of firearm
43,292 burned to death
29,548 drowned
19,253 died from cutting or stabbing wounds
15,677 died at the hands of doctors
7,060 were bludgeoned to death
4,840 were mangled to death by machinery
2,673 died from fatal drug overdoses

The only tracked causes of death that had fewer than 350 since 2004 were overexertion, at 72 deaths, and terrorism, at 0 deaths.

Don't take my word for it, look up the data yourself, and see what the real dangers are: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Wow so almost 10x more people died from fatal drug overdoses than from assault weapons over that time period?

Maybe instead of banning assault weapons we could ban drugs. Make it illegal to make, sell, or possess and set up drug-free zones too. Wouldn't that be a better use of our resources if we could save TEN TIMES as many lives?

TripleB wrote: Wow so almost 10x more people died from fatal drug overdoses than from assault weapons over that time period?

Maybe instead of banning assault weapons we could ban drugs. Make it illegal to make, sell, or possess and set up drug-free zones too. Wouldn't that be a better use of our resources if we could save TEN TIMES as many lives?

I'm going to go for one of the big ones.

Let's outlaw murder!!!!

Think of the thousands of lives that would be saved if we passed a law criminalizing murder.

Pointedstick wrote: According to the CDC's data, during that same time period:

307,521 died in motor vehicle collisions
265,933 were poisoned
162,321 fell to their death
104,513 suffocated
84,149 were murdered with any kind of firearm
43,292 burned to death
29,548 drowned
19,253 died from cutting or stabbing wounds
15,677 died at the hands of doctors
7,060 were bludgeoned to death
4,840 were mangled to death by machinery
2,673 died from fatal drug overdoses

The only tracked causes of death that had fewer than 350 since 2004 were overexertion, at 72 deaths, and terrorism, at 0 deaths.

Don't take my word for it, look up the data yourself, and see what the real dangers are: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

I don't think anyone is talking about outright bans....

We are talking about speed limits, seat belts, air bags, on cars. Safety caps on medicine and poison. Railings on stairways. etc. etc.

doodle wrote: I don't think anyone is talking about outright bans....

I posted many links to this effect in the other thread, which you may have missed. Here's another: in my state of California, another politician just started "talking about outright bans" just today:

AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Digest KeyVote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO

FYI, eliminating grandfathering means making existing possession illegal. That's a ban. Please don't pretend that the anti-gun side is just trying to regulate guns like medicine bottles. They are trying to outlaw weapons, make their owners criminals, and destroy the civilian shooting culture.

PS...

Are they trying to ban all guns, or just certain types of guns? If it is the later, then I think this is a bit like speed limits or guard rails.

I would rather not live in a society where it is legal for civilians to walk into a Walmart and purchase and AK 47 without a background check and parade down 5th avenue with it slung over their shoulder. I would rather that be banned. Now, how far back the bans go from there on the sliding scale is up to society to decide. 

MediumTex wrote:

TripleB wrote: Wow so almost 10x more people died from fatal drug overdoses than from assault weapons over that time period?

Maybe instead of banning assault weapons we could ban drugs. Make it illegal to make, sell, or possess and set up drug-free zones too. Wouldn't that be a better use of our resources if we could save TEN TIMES as many lives?

I'm going to go for one of the big ones.

Let's outlaw murder!!!!


Think of the thousands of lives that would be saved if we passed a law criminalizing murder.

Let's go right to the source and outlaw death!

doodle wrote: PS...

Are they trying to ban all guns, or just certain types of guns? If it is the later, then I think this is a bit like speed limits or guard rails.

In your mind it's not a ban unless they outlaw every single gun? If they banned Priuses and Volts, could I not complain about the car ban because one could still buy an F-250?

doodle wrote: I would rather not live in a society where it is legal for civilians to walk into a Walmart and purchase and AK 47 without a background check and parade down 5th avenue with it slung over their shoulder. I would rather that be banned. Now, how far back the bans go from there on the sliding scale is up to society to decide.

You already live in that society, in the following ways:

1. AK-47s are automatic weapons and are *highly* regulated and very expensive. No Wal-Mart sells them, since they are not class III dealers. Maybe you meant a semi-auto AK clone though, in which case...
2. Wal-Mart is a federally-licensed gun dealer, and conducts background checks for every gun sale.
3. New York City bans open carry of any firearm.


I recognize that there are many perspectives on this issue. But you really owe it to yourself to learn a little bit about what's already legal or illegal. At the very least, being more informed will allow you to more successfully debate us because you won't constantly trigger responses like, "dude, that's already illegal!"

PS,

If we have to assume the worst from the "anti-gun side" due to some people's rhetoric, should we not have to assume the worst from the pro-gun side?  I could send you plenty of quotes of crazy talk from both sides. I think if we allow this to become some kind of straw man debate we'll get nowhere.

I for one agree this focus on "assault rifles" is a bit much.  The focus should be on limiting the massive availability of handguns.

If somehow some kind of youth gun training encouragement and funding could be attached to this to be an offset and keeping Americans freedom-loving enough that would be great.  I definitely like the idea of a society that is capable of being independent in these ways.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: PS...

Are they trying to ban all guns, or just certain types of guns? If it is the later, then I think this is a bit like speed limits or guard rails.

In your mind it's not a ban unless they outlaw every single gun? If they banned Priuses and Volts, could I not complain about the car ban because one could still buy an F-250?

doodle wrote: I would rather not live in a society where it is legal for civilians to walk into a Walmart and purchase and AK 47 without a background check and parade down 5th avenue with it slung over their shoulder. I would rather that be banned. Now, how far back the bans go from there on the sliding scale is up to society to decide.

You already live in that society, in the following ways:

1. AK-47s are automatic weapons and are *highly* regulated and very expensive. No Wal-Mart sells them, since they are not class III dealers. Maybe you meant a semi-auto AK clone though, in which case...
2. Wal-Mart is a federally-licensed gun dealer, and conducts background checks for every gun sale.
3. New York City bans open carry of any firearm.


I recognize that there are many perspectives on this issue. But you really owe it to yourself to learn a little bit about what's already legal or illegal. At the very least, being more informed will allow you to more successfully debate us because you won't constantly trigger responses like, "dude, that's already illegal!"

Right, I have only a limited amount of time and I cant dedicate it to all subjects. 

Anyways, it is my understanding that many here are advocating absolutely no laws or regulations regarding firearms at all. Once they agree that some laws or regulations are necessary, then it just becomes a matter of degrees.

Would you seek to overturn the laws that prevent Walmart from selling AK-47's to any Tom, Dick, or Harry that walks in? Should there even be a background check? Many here seem to argue against even this.

moda0306 wrote: If somehow some kind of youth gun training encouragement and funding could be attached to this to be an offset and keeping Americans freedom-loving enough that would be great.  I definitely like the idea of a society that is capable of being independent in these ways.

I like that idea too. There are many on the pro-gun side willing to compromise. For example, in exchange for giving up on universal background checks, I think we would accept the adding shooting and marksmanship to public school curricula, coupled with the repeal of the gun-free school zone act which would be necessary to make such a thing legal. There are other things we would also take that would in no way reduce public safety, such as removing sound suppressors from the NFA registry. As evidence of our willingness to compromise, I submit into evidence this comment thread from a very pro-gun blog I read: http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/01/23/spl ... /#comments

But it has to be an actual compromise. You know, the kind where each side gets something and loses something. What I doubt is whether you can find any anti-gun politicians who would be willing to go along with that kind of actual compromise. The legislative history is replete with examples of failed compromises that were interpreted as poison pills by the anti-gun politicians.

Compromises are for wimps.  State what you think is right and only give if you have to to get wha you want. Don't compromise just because.

At least that's how I tend to think of it.

I am actually suggesting areas of "compromise" that I actually think are good ideas.  For instance, given the sheer number of guns in the US, you could argue pro-gun people have won hands-down. However, when looking at goofy state regs coming from the CT tragedy, someone else could say the complete opposite.

To keep things simple, I would start with what I think is right/fair if I were "king for a day" and move only to meet certain political or operational realities.  I expect nothing more from anyone else.  However, some people move to the "who's compromising more?" argument before even getting all the facts and realities right on what should be public policy.

Well, that's not exactly compromise anymore, now is it?  If we're each striving for as much as we can get without having to give anything up, that's just run-of-the-mill political competition and the winner will be determined by public support, legislative skill, and lobbying money.

The only reason to ever compromise in politics is if you need the other side's help to get your bill passed. At the national level, these anti-gun bills are mostly DOA without some pro-gun support to overcome vulnerable Dems from rural states/districts, Senate filibusters, and certain death in the GOP-controlled House.

I don't have a problem with gun regulations like not letting people buy guns who are under 18 or or who have mental health issues or criminal records.

What I have a problem with is the belief that if a certain type of rifle is used in a crime that banning that particular type of rifle will prevent crimes like that from occurring in the future.

It's sort of like saying that because a family is tragically killed in a car accident involving a blue Ford Mustang, we are going to ban blue Ford Mustangs.

That line of thinking just seems completely absurd to me.

Not really run of the mill, I don't think. "Good faith" on one side is just another excuse for the other side to push the envelope further.

And what we have in congress is gridlock for the actual sake of disaster happening, hoping it wi hurt the other party.  For instance, if the 2010 republican house would have actually helped enact policies that would have lead to a robust recovery, the Republican Party would have been in shambles.  The worse they made it, the more it would hurt dems.

Further, my form of compromise starts with honesty and a preferred position, not just a position of extremism and dishonesty to be able to pose as having to "compromise" more when you vote for something.

If we had honest politicians that came to thoughtful positions and only compromised when they needed to we'd be in a good place.  "Compromise" for the sake of compromise will result in extremism by the other side.

MediumTex wrote: It's sort of like saying that because a family is tragically killed in a car accident involving a blue Ford Mustang, we are going to ban blue Ford Mustangs.

That line of thinking just seems completely absurd to me.

Perhaps it makes more sense if it is the first step to banning all cars, or at least banning as many as they can, and registering the rest (so they can easily confiscate them when disired).

Paranoid?  Perhaps.

TripleB wrote:
Has anyone figured out what this "thing" is? It could be two things that essentially meet the exactly criteria and kill approximately the same number of Americans each year.

Of course, I'm talking about assault weapons and lightning. It turns out you're actually slightly more likely to get hit and die from a lightning strike in the US than an "assault weapon."

Good thing we install things like lighting rods... or is that just a waste of effort??

I had been thinking that Obama's two election victories signaled the beginning of a left of center political shift in America that would likely endure for many years to come. Because of this one issue I'm not nearly as convinced any more. I think the liberals might be seriously overplaying the hand they think they were dealt. In the last election we had the "war against woman" which was total nonsense but played up very well by the democrats. If the Dems continue down this path and give the Republicans the gift of a "war against gun owners" I believe they will really be shooting themselves in the foot, pun intended.

notsheigetz wrote: I had been thinking that Obama's two election victories signaled the beginning of a left of center political shift in America that would likely endure for many years to come. Because of this one issue I'm not nearly as convinced any more. I think the liberals might be seriously overplaying the hand they think they were dealt. In the last election we had the "war against woman" which was total nonsense but played up very well by the democrats. If the Dems continue down this path and give the Republicans the gift of a "war against gun owners" I believe they will really be shooting themselves in the foot, pun intended.

Are you talking some of the state legislation in the blue states?... or the assault weapons ban that new than 50% of the country supports and is similar to the ban that was passed in the '90's?

If the latter, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.  Similar to the birther stuff, I think the extremists preaching revolution are doing this issue more harm than good and will help solidify the dem's lead.

moda0306 wrote: If the latter, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.  Similar to the birther stuff, I think the extremists preaching revolution are doing this issue more harm than good and will help solidify the dem's lead.

I think this issue tends to bring out the extremists on both sides. A lot of people think the assault weapons ban pushed through by Clinton was a major contributing factor to the defeat of Al Gore. Whether history will repeat or not, only time will tell.

As for the "making a mount out of a molehill" charge has anyone else noticed that this is part of Obama's modus operandi?

And one more thing more dangerous to children than assault weapons in America.....

http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list- ... and-yemen/

And if we really want to get serious about killing children we could clean up some of the ordinance we left behind many years ago....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/se ... ines-bombs

And while we're on the subject of dangerous things, check out the comments for this Amazon item for sale. Priceless.....

http://www.amazon.com/Maisto-Fresh-Meta ... 8287-DYULU

notsheigetz wrote: And while we're on the subject of dangerous things, check out the comments for this Amazon [Predator drone toy] for sale. Priceless.....

http://www.amazon.com/Maisto-Fresh-Meta ... 8287-DYULU

That's some really funny stuff.

Here's a good one:

OMG! It even comes with 1:97 scale hellfire missiles with spring loaded action! You can also pick up a 1:97 scale "brown people minding their own business" play set, a 1:97 scale "brown people wedding party" play set, and a a 1:97 scale "brown people ambulance crew/first responder" play set! It has an ambulance and a fire truck with spring loaded 1:97 scale explosive action! It's SO AWESOME! I wonder if the little models are american people or just regular people? Who cares, it doesn't matter! We can double tap them all, in realistic 1:97 scale of course! It comes complete with a little bag of 1:97 scale body parts, mixed with 1:97 scale blood! I love the detail on their little 1:97 scale faces! I swear, you can almost SEE the fear and anguish as they writhe in 1:97 scale agony! It is ALMOST as if you are actually flying a real (1:97 scale) death dealing predator robot, watching it kill brown people on your monitor from thousands of miles away, just like a real worthless turd, coward! This toy is too much fun!

And another:

Loads of fun! Set up a pretend wedding with your other toys, and then bomb the joyous occasion into ruin! Next, set up a pretend funeral for the imaginary victims and bomb the funeral too! Collect a Nobel Peace Prize after the body parts have finished raining down from the sky and show your friends!

dragoncar wrote: Good thing we install things like lighting rods... or is that just a waste of effort??

Ha! Even though I am anti-ban, I logged in to post the same thing about lightning rods.
Another great invention by Benjamin Franklin.