Dave Stacy There was a show on History, I think it was called Human Weapon, that had an episode that talked extensively about Muay Thai and it's history. I also used my own personal experiences in competing in Muay Thai Kickboxing bouts as a reference.
Dave Stacy "possible that the economic impacts of having a larger skilled and semi-skilled labor pool will be offset by the lower crime, increased tax revenue/compliance, increased spending " Possible, maybe, but very unlikely. The best show of this is the Millenial employment rates from the last 4 years. Most non-collegiate millenials have about the same education as those immigrants, and unemployment rates have not dropped below 14% for that group in over 6 years. Adding more to the ranks is only going to increase unemployment numbers, and the tensions between those Latinos and existing unemployed will lead to an increase in gang crime numbers, as well as the number of gangs overall.
Dave Stacy While I agree that there has to be something better to use than "gay", I will say this... Most of my homosexual friends still say things are "gay", and not in a good way. I think we are going to have the same problem you see these days with the African American communities using the "n" word towards each other, but everyone else gets yelled at for using it. Politicially correct word choices suddenly become as divisive as the phrases they were meant to overcome.
Dave Stacy I also personally placed BJJ as slightly more dangerous because true, Gracie BJJ does allow strikes when standing and when on the ground. Greco Roman has a penchant for more tears and dislocations because of the exhaustive nature of it, mixed with the "cross face", which has been known to cause neck injuries to competitors.
Dave Stacy I think a lot of the recent talk about it stems from fans and biased team reporters who are angry about having lost to the team. Its unfair, but it's called the court of public opinion for a reason. Thank you for taking the time to go through the evidence, the stories, and the facts to get to a reasonable, honest conclusion. It was an educational and unbiased piece that was a joy to read. That being said, Go Ravens! LOL
Dave Stacy Gary, I agree that swords are inherently dangerous, but we don't go around writing up new laws just because they are, and we don't require registration or insurance just to own one. In human history, swords have killed many more than guns have, but it is guns that scare us, which is the only reason we are seeing such an outcry from the liberal left to ban or strictly control them. It's an emotional response to a problem that only logic can solve. As for the car thing, my point was that for all the laws and rules that we have placed on them, more people die every year from drunk driving and not paying attention than do from guns, regardless of the reason a gun was involved.
Dave Stacy I can use one properly, and the only thing I harm will be paper, or maybe a squirrel or deer or bear. Guns, used either way, will harm something, this is true. But it is illogical to punish those who follow the rules because someone decided that the rules didn't matter to them. If we actually tried to do anything about the illegal transfer of weapons instead of only paying it lip service, it wouldn't be a problem anyways. All you would need is a simple card, shipped with every weapon sold or legally owned, that would need to be signed by a licensed dealer who witnessed the sale. It would be up to state law to determine what level of checks and classes would be required, not the federal government.
Dave Stacy I have one, but I already know that people are going to hate me for it. Every mass shooting in the last year or so has been committed in an area designated as a "Gun-Free Zone". This means that only those who obey the law are going to be unarmed and vulnerable in these areas. If someone wanted to shoot a bunch of people and not get shot back at, "Gun-Free Zones" are a perfect choice. My solution to stop mass shootings? Get rid of those zones, and allow at least one administrator per school to have a conceiled carry license and be armed while on school property. There is no way to keep gun out of the hands of criminals who really, really want them. You should not punish the victims, you punish the criminals. Simple as that.
Dave Stacy That's like saying that swords are inherently dangerous, or knives, or thumb tacks. Anything, when used improperly, will harm someone. One needs to practice safety with everything, I mean, you have to take classes to drive, but we don't constantly add new rules to car manufacturers everytime there's an accident that claims a life. Basically, every proposed gun law right now is nothing more than a snap reaction. We all need to just calm the heck down, let our emotions subside, and then talk as rational, logical beings.
Dave Stacy The gun did not just stand up and BANG, it took someone being an idiot or a young child who should not have had access anyways for those guns to hurt anyone. A properly stored, chamber locked, unloaded weapon cannot har manyone without the influence of a person.
Dave Stacy Cold, and liberal. Luckily they actually seem to understand that a ban on weapons wouldn't do much other than piss people off... Beyond that, I'm looking at moving to Galveston, Texas in the next few months... The weed is good, though. Strong, but good.
Dave Stacy Love how these got all kinds of press, but the gang-related shooting of 4 in Baltimore didn't get mentioned. Why, you ask? Because we expect to hear about gang bangers dying. But one kid shoots his bully because he feels that he has no other option, and the media jumps all over it like it's the signal to the sky falling. We really need to hold our politicians, and our media sources, to higher standards... Next thing you know, the news is going to read like a retarded tabloid paper. Wait, it already does? Well, that sucks...
Dave Stacy Enforce the laws we have, and that isn't a problem (as long as the DOJ isn't still trying any gun-running ops for the cartels, that is). I could see there being a law that all gun owners need a gun safe for the guns, but that is about as far as I could see it going without royally pissing off people much more fervent than I when it comes the the 2nd Amendment. Not everyone that buys a gun is going to sell it to the black market or have it stolen by some punk from the 'hood. More often than not, we would rather chase that retarded little hoolum off with a good 12 gauge or a solid .22LR...
Dave Stacy I would rather spend the resources to go after the guns held by those who should not have them, than go after the guns that are owned and stored legally by law abidding citizens. It seems foolish and bully-ish to punish those who follow the law by increasing costs and regulations for them instead of actively trying to remove gun from the hands that wish others harm.
Dave Stacy But what about weapons whos last known owner is deceased, or the weapon was reported stolen from an approved gun safe? What about weapons held by gangs who had them smuggled in from over the borders? What about weapons that were aquired by other, already illegal, means, where the registration is unfound or unknown? On the surface, I kinda like the idea, but it is all the unknowns that make it too naive to be useful in any real, effective way.
Dave Stacy It does not prevent anything, other than the legal ownership by law abidding citizens. If you want to reduce firearms violence, resources need to be spent enforcing laws already on the books, not on some crack-pot registration system that would take almost half a decade to become anywhere near up-to-date. Any form of insurance on firearms is a waste of time, and a punishment for those who own firearms legally instead of spending time hunting down the illegal firearms in the hands of gangs and nutjobs. The issue of firearms laws and sales should not be left to the federal government, as this is not a "one size fits all" situation, thus requiring that only states or localities are involved in the crafting and passage of any legislation.
Dave Stacy And you assume -incorrectly- that a program designed to be reactive has the capability of being proactive. Reducing the total number of firearms in circulation does nothing to account for the black market, which already ignores the firearms laws on the books, at the state and federal level. Guns are often smuggled from country to country, and come over the border from Mexico about as often as they go into Mexico. All an RITL system is going to do is take the guns out of the hands of law abidding citizens (who typically don't shoot other people), without addressing the massive amounts of firearms that already belong in the hands of criminals (who typically don't care about laws).
Dave Stacy I understand that, and agree that some degree of regulation is necessary. What I don't agree with is the idea that some problems can be regulated away, because the source of many of the problems is not the industry, but the individual. We also have a problem where regulations do one of two things: They proactively stop a problem but destroy competition, or they are reactive, in which case they are worthless.
Dave Stacy RITL systems are not useful in a PREVENTATIVE way, just in a REACTIVE way. You cannot tell, with any system of registration, where when and for what purpose a gun will be used. It only helps authorities track down the owner of a weapon AFTER it has be used (and found by authorities). There is nothing that keeps it from being used to commit the crime. I am a gun fanatic, admittedly. I love going to a shooting range and firing guns. I have been like this for almost 20 years, and I have not once committed an act of violence, with or without a gun. To assume that violence is inevitable is to assume that every single person is already a murderer, they just haven't killed yet. Not very wise, regardless of age.
Dave Stacy I hope they do, and they only reason I even brought Obama into is is because of his incorrect belief that we, as a nation, do not have a spending problem, and his constant moves to politicize everything that has to do with our budget (or lack thereof). The debt ceiling represents the money that Congress has spent without taking in equal amounts. We can only do this for so long before one of 2 things happen: either the interest on the debt matches GDP, or those who have been buying up our debt ask for their money back. Not raising the debt ceiling is the only way that we can force Washington to "trim the fat" from the budget, and to temporarily suspend programs we can no longer afford. We would suffer, yes, but it would heal quicker.