Again, that's not the interpretation of those who actually studied the matter, but I'm sure the spin you are parroting knows better. Also, it's kind of funny that you say that you asked me a question that you knew I already answered and then talk about how you knew what my response would be.....I mean, of course you did, you knew I had already answered it and you were just looking to muddy the water with propaganda.
How is it propaganda? lol Man too easy. Again where is your facts? I knew you wouldn't respond with any. So I guess Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts at Boston didn't study the matter. You are making yourself look worse by the minute. I like how you try to make it sound like I posted a dumb question. You fell for it too easily. I actually thought you were smarter than that (Actually no I didn't think that ). I look forward to your info. (I know your answer but I like the rest of posters to see it )
I've been over this dozens of times, I just don't feel like doing it anymore since it never goes anywhere. No matter how many times I completely curb stomp people like you on this issue, a few weeks later I'll have to go through the whole thing again. So, by all means, claim your victory of attrition if that's what does it for you. It won't change the facts though. Honestly it's time to move on and stop having this nonsensical debate and start talking about something that could actually help.
lol What a cop out. Everyone will see how badly you got played. I was searching for my intellectual equal I guess I will look elsewhere. It seems you are willfully inept. Again what facts? Again avoiding the issue. People will see what kind of poster you are. Run away and hide then. LOL
Whatever you have to tell yourself to get you through the day kiddo. If you really want me to smack you around on this issue, give it a bit of time to whee I feel like doing it again. I'm sure you are unaware, but I just got done going through this whole conversation about 3 or 4 times from start to finish and I don't feel like doing it again right now especially since it's pretty clear from how this has gone thus far that I'd have to break it down Barney style every step of the way. Be patient, senpai will give you the attention you crave eventually.
Oh I read what you have posted earlier. I want to see how you frame your response and what context you use. I look forward to you using the Koper report. . Or will you use John Lott's talking points.
Oh btw take as much time as you need. I am sure you need it Bobby. Or should I say Ben Shapiro wanna be. .
This is a good start...though I'm sure there will be schmucks that will crap on a private business for making a decision that doesn't affect them in the least bit...
The only practial way is to ban any firearms. It is doable,quite easy and many many coutries are doing it this way. Guns should be treated like poisonous chemicals.
Of course there will be. The Lt Governor of Georgia is threatening to withold tax breaks for Delta Air Lines because Delta won't give a fare discount for passengers that travel to the NRA convention. Delta, a private business, ends a single discount to a single event and the Georgia government is now threatening to end a tax cut on jet fuel.
I checked with a lawyer about the age thing and age is not a protected class...at least in Minnesota.
And many other states are selling them on moving. If I were the Lt. Gov of GA, I'd tread very lightly in how he treats a much beloved locally based and very large company. But, that's me. I'm not a the complete moran he appears to be.
I so hope Georgia tries to stick it to them. After all they are the number one supplier of jobs in the private sector in Georgia. Contributes $300 million+ to the state in taxes and fees. Delta is a good corporate citizen with respect to charity. New York, Minnesota, Michigan and others are more than happy to take them in.
I just looked up the discount. It is between 2 and 10 percent. So, assuming a $400 plane fare, $8 - $40. If Delta backs down, I'll be disappointed in them. And, I suspect for every real customer they lose, they'll gain one.
Sensible gun control... 1) remove semi-automatic weapons from civilian circulation, or at the very least suspend their production for civilian circulation 2) to maintain proper check of federal authority, empower formation of local (city, county, state) military and paramilitary organizations 3) extend "waiting periods" 4) improve "background checks" by making them more binary and part of a universal criminal database for effectiveness and efficiency sake (not a fan of throwing mental health into this mix as I feel it stigmatizes those whom may want/need to seek help) 5) speaking of mental health, let's establish more socialized medicine that opens doors to mental health services for more people I'm acutely aware that the number one way to curb violence is to ensure an educated society with fair and ample economic opportunity. Healthy happy people don't typically shoot each other, even if it rains guns from the sky. Of course the best way to achieve an educated and empowered society is through socialism, and that isn't exactly a popular idea in conservative circles, so that puts us at an impasse where gun control becomes the only alternative to curb such needless violence.
Good to know you can read... jk Do we have to have insurance for any of our other Constitutional rights? Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Though I do believe gun owners should be criminally liable for negligence resulting in the improper use of the weapon. Examples: Unlocked weapons accessed by children that result in even a simple discharge but no injuries. I'm not sure how insuring weaopons makes anyone more secure. It pays for the damages, but does that make you safer? It's not like driving where you're concerned about your $40,000 car getting damaged. Someone who uses a gun for violence and not protection is obviously not concerned with the monetary consequences resulting from any damage or harm caused by said weapon. What do you believe the Second Amendment's purpose is? If you believe it has anything to do with protection against the threat of future tyranny, than this idea would be a red flag. In this scenario, who would be the first people the government goes to disarm? Those that it already knows possesses weapons. If this list is available and shared to/with the public, as some gun control proponents have suggested, wouldn't criminals just go to the homes without guns? Wouldn't those without weapons be the least safe because they'd be known to criminals as being unarmed? NICS system can certainly be improved, but it's going to take local, state, and federal agencies all sharing info -- Sen. Cornyn's bill would supposedly encourage this, but I haven't read much into it yet. I'm open to the idea, but I don't think this will eliminate mass shootings by any degree. Anyone with any decent amount of experience can load enough magazines to have practically the same effect as a magazine with 30 vs 10 bullets. What about taxing them significantly to make it less likely people use them for sport and then have a moment where they explode and use the gun for criminal purposes? Agreed. But how can we force mental health services onto people? There are LOT of people who need these services that, even when offered, refuse them. We can't involuntarily institutionalize tens of thousands of people simply because they MIGHT be dangerously mentally ill with no due process (which is why ACLU supported repeal of the SSI benefits reporting). Perhaps we need to look at how insurers offer these services, though. Agreed. There are 310 million guns already in American hands. How many assault style rifles? Millions. How many have resulted in these incidents? Relatively, only a few. As heartbreaking as each one of them is, why should we criminalize the behavior of millions of law abiding citizens because a few crazies decided to shoot up children? sidenote: did Clutch remove the "quotes" button or am I just blind? I kept having to type it out...
Delta isn't going anywhere. The enplanement fees at the Atlanta airport are the lowest in the US. It would be nice if Delta brought back some employees to MSP. The old Northwest Airlines Building C needs a little shot of life. They do still have a fair number of corporate staff in there (although its only a fraction of what used to be there in the Northwest days).
