I don't know how shooting a movie theater would help him kill gays unless he had reason to believe that movie would be full of gay people. What I do think is interesting is that nobody is looking through his social media to try to find "evidence of how he was radicalized," but they do look for motive. Just interesting in how the different investigations are being reported.
When I get down to NC I still plan to try to grab MH for a drink, because I believe he is the biggest troll here. Some of my favorite posters actually are those I disagree strongly with, and I think it is really interesting to see where political ideologies deviate. This forum is great.
This is a little unfair. According to the NHTSA, fewer drivers are drinking than in the last few years, and far fewer than in the 70s. http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-releases-2-impaired-driving-studies-02-2015 while it may be true strictly speaking that automotive fatalities in general have declined more rapidly than fatalities related to drunk driving alone, both have decreased dramatically and overall it appears fewer drivers are drinking. this is easy to explain: advancing safety features are likely less useful to those that are drunk than those that are sober. but there is still work to be done with public education and enforcement.
Sure we can come up with "foolproof" ways to kill ourselves. Very few people commit suicide in those ways. Of common methods, firearms are the most effective. Which is why such an enormous percentage of firearm deaths are suicide.
Can we define total ban a little bit better? I am pretty opposed to a complete firearm ban in all cases. They are important tools for hunting in many parts of the country. I knew people in Vermont that hunted for food quite often during the season; they were cash strapped and it provided a vital need for them.
It isn't about "protecting you from yourself." Gun laws shouldn't be enacted specifically to prevent suicide by firearm, but it is a net benefit. I would argue that in a general sense, gun ownership raises the risk of gun-related death. But Americans don't think of it in that terms, because it couldn't happen to them.
It is not. Firearms are very effective methods of suicide and other methods are less effective. One third to one fourth of suicide attempts are impulsive and take advantage of the best method available at the time. Gun control can also cut down on suicide rates. This is called means restriction, and it is thought to be highly effective.
the reason I oppose mandatory GMO labeling is it is not helpful. it does not tell you what the protein product is. genetically modifying organisms is a type of technology. As with any technology, it is far less about the methods than what they are used for. There are many ways we can genetically modify foods. I object to the term GMO and suggest we should adopt the term recombinant foods. Even still, labeling something as being a recombinant food is still unhelpful as it does not identify what genes were inserted or what modifications were made. so Mol3m4n, tell me what it is you object to in regards to what you consider genetically modified foods. I'm curious what it is, honestly.
the whole "give up, and go get a gun, there's nothing anyone can do!" argument is illogical. legislation enacted now could be gradual and represent a shift towards control measures that gradually diminish the existing number of guns in circulation. But there is no political support for that, so oh well. In this country, everyone thinks they are the exception, special, and better than everyone else. The statistics may show I'm more likely to kill myself or someone I love than use my gun to defend myself, but I'll be damned... I'm the exception!