The law is often touted by those who don't know it but want to abuse it, or use it to abuse others. I recently encountered such a person on first and Yesler of Seattle, Pioneer Square.
A security guard, who was harassing people for smoking attempted to use the law, by lying to the cops. Of course the cops know he's lying, I'm the most regular customer in this area.
But the details are not important, the important part was that he was abusing a law which the police here cannot enforce just to discriminate against one type of person for no reason. This is typically done by religious people, who think they are immune to their own laws but everyone else must follow them.
The end result is that law enforcement become untrusted by people, security companies fail to deliver, and businesses crash as customers decide to just cross the street instead of dealing with an arrogant nit. This is the problem faced in Pioneer Square, businesses are trying to find a balance between policing trouble and inviting customers.
Security companies are often their last resort, but that always fails and thus the businesses always fail when they resort to them. There are uses for security guards, the biggest is as a deterrent.
Deterrents are large, imposing figures that discourage criminal activity. It's a psychological ploy that works very well, the imaginary deterrents will always work better than active ones.
"What you think is happening is always worse than what is really happening," this is a fact of the neural networks we call our brains. Our imaginations are our worst enemies, they will concoct millions of scenarios that will make us fear the unknown.
The problem lies in the active deterrents, such as guns or confrontational security guards, these create an attitude of aggression. They remove the imagination and give people a clear and present target, one for which they can place all aggression on.
Psychologically, when an aggressive target is presented the brain goes into active defense, creating and fueling intensity. This will, inevitably, escalate into violence.
We see the effects often in the USA, comparing to the UK where police are relatively unarmed, most criminal activity in the USA results in violence from someone. In the UK, the imaginary deterrents keep the situation calm enough that criminals will not often resist.
Pioneer Square is losing many of it's good businesses, and all we are getting in return are bars and clubs. These invite criminal activity, and force the law enforcement to tolerate drunken behavior.
In the meantime, the owners of the buildings are driving customers away from good businesses like Starbucks, Subway, tattoo shops, even our local convenience store. This vacuum is deteriorating our neighborhood, then they complain that no one wants to rent their spaces to convince the city to hand them tax breaks for those empty spaces.
The problem that we now face is that there is not enough in our budget to cover them, especially because of the failed transportation projects we have thrown millions at. The best solution is one which even I do not like, but it is required.
we must cap all rents in downtown Seattle, including housing and business rents, to encourage growth. We must also stop allowing building owners to discriminate.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Terrorism in the USA
The most idiotic arguments come from those who think they're correct only because someone told them they were. From the gun nuts to the creationists, it's always the same arguments.
Now they whine about always hearing the same counter arguments, yet fail to acknowledge their arguments never change. It is telling of a deluded mind, or as Einstein said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
This habit comes from the fact that these morons refuse to ever learn, either because they fear learning or they are not honest enough to accept new information. Creationists fear learning as it challenges their beliefs, should they ever hold their own claims to the same scrutiny they do for any other god they'd lose all faith.
For gun nuts it is dishonesty, to admit that they are wrong means that they must concede to lying. So they must keep their original lie by adding more lies to cover it up.
Commonly language of these two groups is identical, often they play on emotion and discourage any scrutiny of what they state. They will fire a lot of garbage claims, bullshit points, and obvious lies to overwhelm the opponent, waiting for that moment when you just give up.
The trick to combating this is by staying on topic, even repeating your original point until they address it. The longer they refuse to address that point, the more foolish they look.
Gun psychos are the least honest of all the morons, they will use confusion and fear to dissuade anyone from opposing them. Fear being their primary tactic, once you stop fearing what they claim is a danger they lose their minds.
The other term for their tactics is terrorism. Religious preachers use this tactic as well, scare people into agreeing with them in spite of having no solid evidence to support their claims.
Another terrorist tactic is to target those under the pressure of extreme grief, then use the confusion and desperation of that grief to sell a product. Whether that product is an idea or tangible, it is never a good product if sold during grief.
Now they whine about always hearing the same counter arguments, yet fail to acknowledge their arguments never change. It is telling of a deluded mind, or as Einstein said: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
This habit comes from the fact that these morons refuse to ever learn, either because they fear learning or they are not honest enough to accept new information. Creationists fear learning as it challenges their beliefs, should they ever hold their own claims to the same scrutiny they do for any other god they'd lose all faith.
For gun nuts it is dishonesty, to admit that they are wrong means that they must concede to lying. So they must keep their original lie by adding more lies to cover it up.
Commonly language of these two groups is identical, often they play on emotion and discourage any scrutiny of what they state. They will fire a lot of garbage claims, bullshit points, and obvious lies to overwhelm the opponent, waiting for that moment when you just give up.
The trick to combating this is by staying on topic, even repeating your original point until they address it. The longer they refuse to address that point, the more foolish they look.
Gun psychos are the least honest of all the morons, they will use confusion and fear to dissuade anyone from opposing them. Fear being their primary tactic, once you stop fearing what they claim is a danger they lose their minds.
The other term for their tactics is terrorism. Religious preachers use this tactic as well, scare people into agreeing with them in spite of having no solid evidence to support their claims.
Another terrorist tactic is to target those under the pressure of extreme grief, then use the confusion and desperation of that grief to sell a product. Whether that product is an idea or tangible, it is never a good product if sold during grief.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Letter to Seattle and Doney Clincs
This notion that different rules apply to humans versus other animals when it comes to compassion is arrogant, and dangerous. It is an archaic notion born of religious superstitions and xenophobia.
While our mammal brains are suppose to be capable of handling situations with compassion and empathy, many humans lack the experiences, knowledge, or open mind to guide these in productive and meaningful ways. Being transgendered, knowing since I was 8 years old, has offered me a unique perspective on our treatment of other animals.
So to address this point anthropomorphically, spay and neuter programs are forcing animals to live with gender disphoria, a horror I have lived for 40 years now because humanity lacks compassion. So I have worked against these spay and neuter programs from behind the curtains, but now it's time to bring this fight to the spotlight.
The double standard we see between how we treat humans and our more distant relatives illustrates that the entire notion of spay and neuter is a scam. To justify this scam they often cite phenomena that humans are responsible for causing.
MYTH: Cats and dogs will overpopulate.
FACT: Due to our intervention, domesticated animals are less capable of surviving against predators. This means that their populations can only increase if we remove possible predators.
During our existence, we have driven nearly half of all life on this planet extinct through our actions. The result is a decline in natural diversity, and we still continue to hunt all other animals without prejudice.
The resulting imbalance has created a need for animals which can live with us, as a species. The number of possible candidates decreases as we poison entire populations out of baseless fears perpetuated by profit hungry businesses.
We have a unique chance to reintroduce some variety among the species that can survive in the world we created, the domesticated species are perfect for this. Their diversity and resilience to our artificial environment make them ideal, and nature loves such situations.
MYTH: The cats and dogs cannot fend for themselves.
FACT: Yes, but to admit this you also admit that your claims of overpopulation are fallacious. This is a tactic that feeds on empathy in order to perpetuate the industry, the same way tobacco companies would advertise.
MYTH: They can spread disease to humans if allowed to be wild.
FACT: Most illnesses cannot be transmitted across species. Of the few that can, we have vaccines now.
Modern medicine has allowed humans to survive deadly illnesses, it has also extended our lifespan causing our own overpopulation. Yes, medicine is one of the primary causes of overpopulation.
The only possible way for cats and dogs to overpopulate is by treating them all with our medicine. Without medicine, overpopulation is impossible.
MYTH: Invasive species are dangerous.
FACT: Often this us used to appeal to fear when all other tactics fail. The fact is that there are no truly invasive species, other species in the environment will evolve, causing them to adapt to the new ecosystem created by any newly introduced species.
MYTH: Spay and neuter causes no harm to them.
FACT: Yes, it causes drastic physiological changes to all mammals, ask a doctor why they require invasive psychoanalysis for the humans who request this. Hormones are regulated, balanced, based on the gamete producers, hormones control our emotions.
So yes, by torturing me and removing my right to choose to have mine removed willingly, you prove that this procedure is dangerous. I am able to take medication to regulate my hormones, yet they cannot.
So to cause that harm to them is immoral, life in a body you do not like because of one tiny thing is torture. My two feline companions are the only thing keeping me from harming others, and your pricing of licenses is solely for profit.
Funding spay and neuter clinics is wrong, immoral, and heinous.
Related articles of importance:
Gamete production, sex hormone secretion, and mating behavior uncoupled
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X84900473
Hormone Effects on Behavior
http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-1997-6_59
Steroid hormone effects on neurons subserving behavior
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0959438895801103
_________________
The statistics of natural selection on animal populations.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19850191884.html;jsessionid=888180779C57444ADC1C2914136C3C38
Life historical consequences of natural selection
http://repository.ias.ac.in/10284/
The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319193
While our mammal brains are suppose to be capable of handling situations with compassion and empathy, many humans lack the experiences, knowledge, or open mind to guide these in productive and meaningful ways. Being transgendered, knowing since I was 8 years old, has offered me a unique perspective on our treatment of other animals.
So to address this point anthropomorphically, spay and neuter programs are forcing animals to live with gender disphoria, a horror I have lived for 40 years now because humanity lacks compassion. So I have worked against these spay and neuter programs from behind the curtains, but now it's time to bring this fight to the spotlight.
The double standard we see between how we treat humans and our more distant relatives illustrates that the entire notion of spay and neuter is a scam. To justify this scam they often cite phenomena that humans are responsible for causing.
MYTH: Cats and dogs will overpopulate.
FACT: Due to our intervention, domesticated animals are less capable of surviving against predators. This means that their populations can only increase if we remove possible predators.
During our existence, we have driven nearly half of all life on this planet extinct through our actions. The result is a decline in natural diversity, and we still continue to hunt all other animals without prejudice.
The resulting imbalance has created a need for animals which can live with us, as a species. The number of possible candidates decreases as we poison entire populations out of baseless fears perpetuated by profit hungry businesses.
We have a unique chance to reintroduce some variety among the species that can survive in the world we created, the domesticated species are perfect for this. Their diversity and resilience to our artificial environment make them ideal, and nature loves such situations.
MYTH: The cats and dogs cannot fend for themselves.
FACT: Yes, but to admit this you also admit that your claims of overpopulation are fallacious. This is a tactic that feeds on empathy in order to perpetuate the industry, the same way tobacco companies would advertise.
MYTH: They can spread disease to humans if allowed to be wild.
FACT: Most illnesses cannot be transmitted across species. Of the few that can, we have vaccines now.
Modern medicine has allowed humans to survive deadly illnesses, it has also extended our lifespan causing our own overpopulation. Yes, medicine is one of the primary causes of overpopulation.
The only possible way for cats and dogs to overpopulate is by treating them all with our medicine. Without medicine, overpopulation is impossible.
MYTH: Invasive species are dangerous.
FACT: Often this us used to appeal to fear when all other tactics fail. The fact is that there are no truly invasive species, other species in the environment will evolve, causing them to adapt to the new ecosystem created by any newly introduced species.
MYTH: Spay and neuter causes no harm to them.
FACT: Yes, it causes drastic physiological changes to all mammals, ask a doctor why they require invasive psychoanalysis for the humans who request this. Hormones are regulated, balanced, based on the gamete producers, hormones control our emotions.
So yes, by torturing me and removing my right to choose to have mine removed willingly, you prove that this procedure is dangerous. I am able to take medication to regulate my hormones, yet they cannot.
So to cause that harm to them is immoral, life in a body you do not like because of one tiny thing is torture. My two feline companions are the only thing keeping me from harming others, and your pricing of licenses is solely for profit.
Funding spay and neuter clinics is wrong, immoral, and heinous.
Related articles of importance:
Gamete production, sex hormone secretion, and mating behavior uncoupled
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X84900473
Hormone Effects on Behavior
http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-1997-6_59
Steroid hormone effects on neurons subserving behavior
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0959438895801103
_________________
The statistics of natural selection on animal populations.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19850191884.html;jsessionid=888180779C57444ADC1C2914136C3C38
Life historical consequences of natural selection
http://repository.ias.ac.in/10284/
The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/319193
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
The Issue of Morality
The issue of morality is used by those selling religion because most people only know what events transpired during their lives, and within their limited locale. The fact is, what we call "morality" is a series of highly subjective rules that benefit society the most.
Killing is a perfect example, murder is kling that is against the laws of society, and we kill a lot as a society. In self defense, or defense of a weaker being, killing is generally considered okay, and laws reflect this.
In the past, we would kill for grudges, anger, resources, and religion. Today we kill far less for resources, and this reason for killing is now considered immoral, thus it has always been subjective.
The reasons we now consider many acts to be immoral is because it harms society, our species, and slows progress. So we developed alternatives to these acts, for resources we use commerce and trade instead.
Let us consider the harm kling causes. Suppose you contracted cancer, and in some random shooting the person on the verge of curing that cancer was killed.
That is a direct harm caused to one's self by the killing which illustrates the selfish point here, but we can stretch that further. Perhaps the one killed develops a machine which then leads to the cure for your cancer.
Now we are stretching the thought track beyond what dealers of the drug called religion can even consider. The machine to cure analogy is also the most common event in history.
More often than not, a small discovery cascades into larger ones, using critical thought produces those small steps. The term used to describe this is the butterfly effect.
Now consider the instinctual drive to protect your progeny, to promote your genetic chemistry. This requires you defend your progeny, and thus if they got the cancer later, you could have inevitably prevented a cure by not defending the one who was killed.
Thus, we form laws, society supports itself by discouraging any activity which weakens it using these laws. It is preemptively satisfying your instinctual drive to survive and propagate.
If you look closely at everything we call morally wrong for which there is a rationale, you will see it all impacts your chances of survival.
Killing is a perfect example, murder is kling that is against the laws of society, and we kill a lot as a society. In self defense, or defense of a weaker being, killing is generally considered okay, and laws reflect this.
In the past, we would kill for grudges, anger, resources, and religion. Today we kill far less for resources, and this reason for killing is now considered immoral, thus it has always been subjective.
The reasons we now consider many acts to be immoral is because it harms society, our species, and slows progress. So we developed alternatives to these acts, for resources we use commerce and trade instead.
Let us consider the harm kling causes. Suppose you contracted cancer, and in some random shooting the person on the verge of curing that cancer was killed.
That is a direct harm caused to one's self by the killing which illustrates the selfish point here, but we can stretch that further. Perhaps the one killed develops a machine which then leads to the cure for your cancer.
Now we are stretching the thought track beyond what dealers of the drug called religion can even consider. The machine to cure analogy is also the most common event in history.
More often than not, a small discovery cascades into larger ones, using critical thought produces those small steps. The term used to describe this is the butterfly effect.
Now consider the instinctual drive to protect your progeny, to promote your genetic chemistry. This requires you defend your progeny, and thus if they got the cancer later, you could have inevitably prevented a cure by not defending the one who was killed.
Thus, we form laws, society supports itself by discouraging any activity which weakens it using these laws. It is preemptively satisfying your instinctual drive to survive and propagate.
If you look closely at everything we call morally wrong for which there is a rationale, you will see it all impacts your chances of survival.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Sports Arenas in Seattle
Sports in the USA is almost as much of a problem as guns, however no one talks about the problems caused by sports. Forgetting, for the moment, the riots that have always benn common, arenas are the more common problem.
While there is an appearance of sales increase for a handful of businesses, the profits are negligible. Most arena denizens know that they are spending a fortune for their vice, so they withhold most of the money to spend at the arena.
The prices of arena vendors are artificially inflated, by the high rent they must pay for their location. These prices are set by the the owner of the arena, however the vendors must also pay fees to the sports team, and the league organization.
This results in a huge increase of the price, a product that costs one dollar to produce will cost the consumer up to 25 USD, even food and beverage. To reduce competition, the arenas banned all outside food and drink, even if it is necessary for health, to make it worse, the city government and law enforcement allow them to do that.
This forces the arena denizens to spend a fortune on even their own needs, and discourages them from spending in the city that collects almost no taxes from these sales. Fees from the sports organizations are not taxed, none of their profits goes into the city at all, this includes ticket sales.
Now, the biggest part of this problem, in downtown Seattle we see this most, once the game starts there is no parking for any actual customers, none. The streets are bare, save the few brave and healthy individuals who live in the city itself.
This covers the largest portion of profitable business hours for local businesses, especially in Pioneer Square. Prior to the game, the arena denizens use the facilities of local businesses here, making a huge mess, without ever buying anything, and that costs the businesses money which they cannot recuperate because there is no parking for any actual customers.
The rowdiness of the crowds also discourages actual shoppers, as arena denizens are freakishly violent, unruly, and truly disgusting. The city pays for all of this, fronting the bill for cleanup and policing, while businesses fail because of it.
Our city counsel ignores this problem, as they are probably getting handouts from the sports organizations, then they wonder why Pioneer Square is not revitalizing. These two arenas hold games all year long, the noise and air pollution, also the litter and urine, are a serious problem here because of these people.
The local bars do not produce as many belligerent and violent people as the sports arena does. Pioneer Square reeks of urine after every game, and the homeless get blamed for it.
As these arena denizens leave their game, they crowd the streets, scream, yell, blast obnoxious music at ear splitting volumes, and intimidate every possible customer in the area. The insult to this injury is that most do not even live in the city.
While there is an appearance of sales increase for a handful of businesses, the profits are negligible. Most arena denizens know that they are spending a fortune for their vice, so they withhold most of the money to spend at the arena.
The prices of arena vendors are artificially inflated, by the high rent they must pay for their location. These prices are set by the the owner of the arena, however the vendors must also pay fees to the sports team, and the league organization.
This results in a huge increase of the price, a product that costs one dollar to produce will cost the consumer up to 25 USD, even food and beverage. To reduce competition, the arenas banned all outside food and drink, even if it is necessary for health, to make it worse, the city government and law enforcement allow them to do that.
This forces the arena denizens to spend a fortune on even their own needs, and discourages them from spending in the city that collects almost no taxes from these sales. Fees from the sports organizations are not taxed, none of their profits goes into the city at all, this includes ticket sales.
Now, the biggest part of this problem, in downtown Seattle we see this most, once the game starts there is no parking for any actual customers, none. The streets are bare, save the few brave and healthy individuals who live in the city itself.
This covers the largest portion of profitable business hours for local businesses, especially in Pioneer Square. Prior to the game, the arena denizens use the facilities of local businesses here, making a huge mess, without ever buying anything, and that costs the businesses money which they cannot recuperate because there is no parking for any actual customers.
The rowdiness of the crowds also discourages actual shoppers, as arena denizens are freakishly violent, unruly, and truly disgusting. The city pays for all of this, fronting the bill for cleanup and policing, while businesses fail because of it.
Our city counsel ignores this problem, as they are probably getting handouts from the sports organizations, then they wonder why Pioneer Square is not revitalizing. These two arenas hold games all year long, the noise and air pollution, also the litter and urine, are a serious problem here because of these people.
The local bars do not produce as many belligerent and violent people as the sports arena does. Pioneer Square reeks of urine after every game, and the homeless get blamed for it.
As these arena denizens leave their game, they crowd the streets, scream, yell, blast obnoxious music at ear splitting volumes, and intimidate every possible customer in the area. The insult to this injury is that most do not even live in the city.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Gun Sense is wrong ... and Right
The problem with many people is that they conflate an increase in available information with an increase in presence of phenomena described by the information. This comes from our old mindset, a time before the world wide internet.
So let's take a trip to a time before information was free, as in freely expressed, transmitted, and viewable. Back to the age I grew up in, the 1980s and early 1990s.
Prior to to that age, information came even slower due to a lack of outlets, before that it was even slower due to a lack of media. Remember, most of our modern technology was not available 20 years ago, and it was very expensive to own even a clunky 8-bit computer with no modem.
A modem, for those too young to remember, was required to connect to the few BBS systems available using a telephone. Each modern website would be an entire BBS, and to change to a different "website" you had to hang up, then dial a new phone number.
Any information about current events, government activities, even scientific advances came to us filtered by the ruby lenses of the mainstream media. An outlet of information that is only for profit, and it is censored by the very government who is invested in keeping the masses quiet and uninformed.
As for science, scientific research was discouraged, and businesses kept it from the masses, a monopolized collection of information which was accessible only by corporate elites. Today the scientific community is very pleased that this is no longer the case, which is why we see more advances in both science and technology.
Fast forwarding to today, all of us who grew up in the last 3 or 4 decades are now seeing 300% more information. Ultimately, this has been called "information overload," the result is an illusion of increased events, phenomena, and occurrences.
The reality is that the information is increasing, while most of what that information describes is remaining the same. Mass shootings are the perfect example, there is no actual increase in these shootings.
We are, however, getting live feeds from every one of the shootings now. There is a natural shift in such events, depending on public state in a specific locale, which can cause an increase or decrease based the environment and social climate.
The social climate is usually the primary cause for these changes, but not the primary reason for the event. The reasons for the events are often a separate issue.
So let's take a trip to a time before information was free, as in freely expressed, transmitted, and viewable. Back to the age I grew up in, the 1980s and early 1990s.
Prior to to that age, information came even slower due to a lack of outlets, before that it was even slower due to a lack of media. Remember, most of our modern technology was not available 20 years ago, and it was very expensive to own even a clunky 8-bit computer with no modem.
A modem, for those too young to remember, was required to connect to the few BBS systems available using a telephone. Each modern website would be an entire BBS, and to change to a different "website" you had to hang up, then dial a new phone number.
Any information about current events, government activities, even scientific advances came to us filtered by the ruby lenses of the mainstream media. An outlet of information that is only for profit, and it is censored by the very government who is invested in keeping the masses quiet and uninformed.
As for science, scientific research was discouraged, and businesses kept it from the masses, a monopolized collection of information which was accessible only by corporate elites. Today the scientific community is very pleased that this is no longer the case, which is why we see more advances in both science and technology.
Fast forwarding to today, all of us who grew up in the last 3 or 4 decades are now seeing 300% more information. Ultimately, this has been called "information overload," the result is an illusion of increased events, phenomena, and occurrences.
The reality is that the information is increasing, while most of what that information describes is remaining the same. Mass shootings are the perfect example, there is no actual increase in these shootings.
We are, however, getting live feeds from every one of the shootings now. There is a natural shift in such events, depending on public state in a specific locale, which can cause an increase or decrease based the environment and social climate.
The social climate is usually the primary cause for these changes, but not the primary reason for the event. The reasons for the events are often a separate issue.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
The Responsibility of Guns
When gun violence plagues this country you get two reaction, one side cries for more regulations, the other cries about the first using an example as an example. The fact is, all tragedy is an example of where we must improve.
Regulations can help alleviate problems, so long as the regulations are reasonable and demonstrably effective. One great idea is better enforcement of background checks and psychological evaluations.
Neither of these harm anyone, we know they will reduce the number of criminals who can legally obtain a weapon, they will also reduce the number of weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. As a side effect, we will see a reduction in guns available for theft.
One factor ignored by the faux-right is that more guns means more opportunity for those guns to be stolen from irresponsible owners. Addendum that could be added is that if you had a weapon stolen from you, you are considered irresponsible and not allowed one.
This would reduce the number of illegally obtainable weapons, by reducing the number of guns in the hands of the gun owners that are giving all gun owners a bad name. The sad part of this, the responsible gun owners are being punished for the acts of irresponsible gun owners because of a lack of regulation.
Every time a legally obtained gun is used in a crime, the responsible gun owners all look bad, the entire industry looks bad. Yet somehow, responsible gun owners have been convinced that the regulations would hurt them instead.
Regulations can help alleviate problems, so long as the regulations are reasonable and demonstrably effective. One great idea is better enforcement of background checks and psychological evaluations.
Neither of these harm anyone, we know they will reduce the number of criminals who can legally obtain a weapon, they will also reduce the number of weapons in the hands of potentially dangerous individuals. As a side effect, we will see a reduction in guns available for theft.
One factor ignored by the faux-right is that more guns means more opportunity for those guns to be stolen from irresponsible owners. Addendum that could be added is that if you had a weapon stolen from you, you are considered irresponsible and not allowed one.
This would reduce the number of illegally obtainable weapons, by reducing the number of guns in the hands of the gun owners that are giving all gun owners a bad name. The sad part of this, the responsible gun owners are being punished for the acts of irresponsible gun owners because of a lack of regulation.
Every time a legally obtained gun is used in a crime, the responsible gun owners all look bad, the entire industry looks bad. Yet somehow, responsible gun owners have been convinced that the regulations would hurt them instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)