CompanionCubee

> Public opinion in Minnesota in particular, is largely in favour of strict gun laws. Many anti-gun advocates claim that developing a militia against the government is futile and even counterproductive.

So a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.

> "Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

>Sounds like a regime worth fighting if that's what you believe, but it seems you've decided it's futile.

They both can and can't fight at the same time. The guns are weapons of war, but also useless in war.

Make it make sense.

>Another thing that has changed (which you haven't addressed at all) is that there are communities of mass shooting enthusiasts online who collect data on them, lionize the perpetrators, spread their manifestos

Which is directly enabled by the coverage mentioned in GP.

> The PISA assessment by the OECD demonstrates that only 13.5% of American students age 15 were able to distinguish fact from opinion in reading tests.

What's the distribution among public and home schooling?

Also what is the rate for adults?

It's just sparkling robbery.

But that will only justify more gun control measures. It's a win-win for them.

That's kind of how high priced artwork works too.

One of the benefits of having only one eye, you only see one side! :)

>I’ve seen this a few times on the net and it’s weird quote to me, because the nazis did incrementally come after more groups; Jews, gay, Gypsies, disabled, etc.

>Is my takeaway that it didn’t happen or something else?

It's supposed to be a shibboleth

>> While the riots of last summer were not characterized as terrorism,

>You can see how this destroys anything that you're about to say, right?

Not so much, unless you would like to dispute that riots count as violence. Or that terrorism is politically motivated violence. :)

> Framing protestors as “vigilantes” implies wrongdoing

Wouldn't want to imply wrongdoing on the part of arsonists, after all.

It's a marketing term for a technique you could probably learn for much less in any wrestling or jujitsu gym for thousands of years, but isn't as defensible in court.

She was. The reporting had built up an inaccurate view of reality in her mind.

>So the taser is deadly?

It can be, depending on how it is used.

> How many times can a taser be fired?

This depends on the model but ones which can fire multiple shots are issued to police.

>Brooks is running away, are you seriously suggesting that he posed a serious thread to the officers?

Yes, because he did.

You tried to defend the irrationality of someone experiencing fear.

Is assuming you're in a vacuum based on reality for someone on Earth who is experiencing symptoms of hypoxia like astronauts would?

> The eight recruiters allegedly helped create fraudulent records, including transcripts, that students could give to immigration authorities. Authorities said in the original charging documents that they collectively accepted more than $250,000 in kickbacks for their work, not realizing that the payments were actually coming from undercover agents who worked for Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE.

According to the article, seven of the eight have already plead guilty.

Don't forget fire extinguishers! There's no reason for a regular subject to have one of those, better to leave it to the professionals.

So you agree with the other poster that is is possible to pull a gun and point it at them without killing them. What a roundabout way of pretending to disagree.

That's quite a lot of pot calling.

And your last paragraph is just a complete misunderstanding of what the poster said. My comment was not to denounce the rule about where you point the gun, but to note that your claim about killing was unfounded.

> And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one

The fact that you don't understand this is really troublesome. Are you one of those people who believes in that old myth about swords having to taste blood before being resheathed? Because this is on that level.

The degree of planning and preparation that goes into the infamous mass shootings does suggest that they are capable.

Or they are parents who believe in supporting the public school system, even at the expense of their kid.

There are 664,435 reported abortions in 2013, compared to about 33760 firearms homicides. There is a scale difference but not in the direction you anticipated.

>This is a consistant tactic used by gun rights advocates: exclude any gun violence they can to reduce the numbers. "This mass shooting doesn't count, it's gang violence", "These deaths don't count, they're suicide", "This isn't a mass shooting, because only 3 people died"

The irony is that your sibling poster also wrote this: "Mumbai attack was a terrorist attack. My response was in context of mass shooting in schools."

Really? Then list which five you're referring to.

Ask yourself: Is it an accounting trick to recognize revenue before it has been realized?