Florida high school under lockdown after reports of shooter, victims, police say

Although I don’t currently have the time to research the leading causes of deaths among U.S. school-age children, I’m sure school shootings is not one of them. Domestic violence, drugs, alcohol, car accidents, toys are various kinds cause many more deaths of children than school shootings.

Now the State of California wants to remove some of the chemicals from water treatment and stop or reduce immunization requirements, we will soon have another ramp up in children deaths.

Only this time, these additional, legislative-caused deaths will not be measured in the dozens or hundreds, but in the many thousands.

California receives a lot of immigrants who are from areas that have higher infectious disease rates than the United States.

Although the chemicals they want to remove from their water supply and the fact that immunizations are not good for you, neither are high lethality and cummunicable pathogens.
 
maximumpossiblesuffering said:
we will soon have another ramp up in children deaths.
More...

That's your GUESS without any proof at all. On top of that even if it is true it is not an argument to continue killing innocent people.

The deadly shootings are REALITY. On graveyards all over the US you can find proof.

maximumpossiblesuffering said:
Thank you for this post. I will be boycotting these companies and will request the NRA recommend their supporters boycott these companies as well.
More...

NRA has 5 million members. The US has over 327 million inhabitants. So NRA represents 1.5% of the US. Negligible and at the same horrible that such a small group can cause so many killings.

In the most optimistic scenario these companies will lose 1.5% of their clients. In profits it will even be less as NRA received discounts, so profits will decline less then 1.5%.
But these companies will also attract new clients because of their action against NRA. And that potential is 322 millions people big. The whole US population minus the NRA.
 
I just joined the NRA. The annual membership fee is too low at $40.00. No wonder they give such tiny amounts to our Republican candidates. They offered a free gift and a magazine subscription with a paid membership. I declined. Additionally. to make up for the small annual membership fee, I sent the NRA a donation.

Effective support of our second amendment rights is going to need more than donations to the NRA. It is going to require our personal time in blogging and informing people who are on the fence on the gun rights issues.

Being gainfully employed seems to be a handicap, timewise, in defending our constitution rights against those who seem to be less encumbered by things like employment.
 
schweiz said:
That's your GUESS without any proof at all. On top of that even if it is true it is not an argument to continue killing innocent people.

The deadly shootings are REALITY. On graveyards all over the US you can find proof.



NRA has 5 million members. The US has over 327 million inhabitants. So NRA represents 1.5% of the US. Negligible and at the same horrible that such a small group can cause so many killings.

In the most optimistic scenario these companies will lose 1.5% of their clients. In profits it will even be less as NRA received discounts, so profits will decline less then 1.5%.
But these companies will also attract new clients because of their action against NRA. And that potential is 322 millions people big. The whole US population minus the NRA.
More...

There is something that poker players, profitable traders, insurance actuaries, executives, and others consider in making decisions.

It is called expectency. You take a decision, weigh the possible outcomes, and attempt to measure the likely return of that decision. This expectancy can be positive or negative.

To use a no limit poker analogy, challenging a short-stacked tight player with a weak hand preflop has a negative expectancy. Sure you will win some hands, but on balance, you will lose money in these situations.

California’s policies will save money, but there will be a human cost that has the potential to spread beyond its borders.

The supporters of the NRA can influence their supporters to boycott these businesses as well. I would venture to say the demographic of a Republican NRA is stronger financially than average and would represent a more painful loss to a company than the general population.
 
schweiz said:
That's your GUESS without any proof at all. On top of that even if it is true it is not an argument to continue killing innocent people.

The deadly shootings are REALITY. On graveyards all over the US you can find proof.



NRA has 5 million members. The US has over 327 million inhabitants. So NRA represents 1.5% of the US. Negligible and at the same horrible that such a small group can cause so many killings.

In the most optimistic scenario these companies will lose 1.5% of their clients. In profits it will even be less as NRA received discounts, so profits will decline less then 1.5%.
But these companies will also attract new clients because of their action against NRA. And that potential is 322 millions people big. The whole US population minus the NRA.
More...

Also, the client base of some of the companies in question is much lower than “327 million inhabitants.”
 
Tsing Tao said:
Spike is an idiot, demonstrated repeatedly.
More...

You remind me of the Florida guy who shot up the crowd in Las Vegas. Similar kind of guy, loved his guns. In the wrong circumstances, who really knows what you are capable of or what kind of violence you might encourage. What we do know is if you are armed you are more likely to kill someone and if you own some of these war ready guns you are more likely to kill many people.

Every time some guy loses it and shoots up a lot of innocent people, especially kids, it gets harder to care at all what you think about guns. US society is coming to that conclusion slowly but surely. Your work place refuses to let you bring in your guns to your work; maybe you should think carefully why that is the case, and that any amount of training or implied self supposed restraint isn't going to change their policy.
 
ObPVZMW.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top