What Bob said.

NerblyBear wrote:

clocker bob wrote: this is not a result of lax laws as much as it is the result of very determined bad brains.

I know their later material was questionable, but do we really need to pin this on them, too?

They're homophobic AND they're responsible for all gun deaths? What dicks.

clocker bob wrote:Problem gun users are problem brain users.

It's fascinating how the problem brains have migrated to the states with the most liberal gun laws.

NerblyBear wrote:

clocker bob wrote: this is not a result of lax laws as much as it is the result of very determined bad brains.

I know their later material was questionable, but do we really need to pin this on them, too?

As I was typing 'bad brains' into my post, I flipped over a very small hour glass to time when a pic of HR would follow my post. Even on a sunday night, ten minutes is a good time.

vockins wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Problem gun users are problem brain users.

It's fascinating how the problem brains have migrated to the states with the most liberal gun laws.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html[/list]

vockins wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Problem gun users are problem brain users.

It's fascinating how the problem brains have migrated to the states with the most liberal gun laws.

Washington, DC #1! Home of the Bad Brains! Just like I said!

kenoki wrote:http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html[/list]

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

vockins wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Problem gun users are problem brain users.

It's fascinating how the problem brains have migrated to the states with the most liberal gun laws.

Okay, now my serious answer. If you read my post, you'll see that I didn't claim that gun violence could not be reduced with strict gun laws. I choose not to make that trade.

It's been my opinion for forever that the Founding Fathers made very very few missteps when they drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the violence of modern society is making us scapegoat the hardware and not the software, we are treating the Second Amendment as bad law. Those guys were on a hot streak, Amendments I through X, nothing but net- I doubt they bricked one when they drafted #2. They had more guns per capita in 1781, and they weren't scared of guns. I think they put gun rights right after freedom of speech because they knew that the right to speak out and the right to self defense were going to be the first two rights to end up in the crosshairs of future totalitarians, and believe me, they were very aware that there would be future totalitarians.

vockins wrote:This evidence directly contradicts what you have stated above.

Any idea whether the carry laws have changed since 1980? If they are tougher, then these data support my position.

But I'm prepared to be wrong.

steve wrote:

matthew wrote:I think some of you folks are missing the point here. I am certainly not saying that employers ought not to compensate people for work in some instances what with setting the minimum wage at $0.00. After all, no one in their right mind would take a job which offered a wage or salary of nil. I'm merely saying that the market ought to decide how much or how little labor costs, because that is...once again...simply how the world works. The price of anything is ultimately determined by supply and demand (or at least the perception thereof), and labor is no exception. Ask anyone who owns a business.

I own a business. You are full of shit

To pretend that unskilled labor is a market, and that workers can negotiate a fair wage is to ignore the difference between a powerful employer and a pool of potential workers who need jobs and have no resources of their own. In the words of someone famous, "How does a cleaning woman effectively negotiate with General Motors?"

There's a difference between a unionized or otherwise organized body of workers negotiating with an employer about compensation and a government sticking its nose in where it ought not to. So what are you trying to say? I'm all for both groups and individuals haggling over the cost of labor with employers- good. That's the way the market works.

A minimum wage puts a bottom rung on how low an employer may sink in the exploitation of people (real people already born, so they may not matter much to you, Matthew). The employer is not interested in paying a fair wage, he is only interested in paying the absolute minimum he can without going to jail. This is not negotiation and does not resemble a market.

An employer should both be interested in just, fair compensation and also running a business well. After all, no one will want to work for an employer who doesn't compensate their employees well. So the two are not mutually exclusive, though you seem to think they are. And as far as the whole "compassionate towards the exploited" nonsense goes, well, if a person thinks their getting screwed at the job they're in, there's a whole market of other jobs to choose from if he or she has the ambition to pursue any of them. Shit, check craigslist or the help wanted pages in any newspaper if you don't believe me. There are literally thousands and thousands of jobs out there for the taking if one has the ambition to get up and have the desire to work....... did you ever consider that some people who are unemployed are just lazy and want to suck off the tit of taxpayer's money instead of providing for themselves?

It all comes back to letting the markets function properly in the end.