MC_Lovecraft

If it weren't clear enough why I identify so strongly with Claude already, the lyrics to Manchester repeat: "Claude Hooper Bukowski Finds that it's groovy To hide in a movie Pretends he's Fellini And Antonioni And also his countryman Roman Polanski All rolled into one One Claude Hooper Bukowski"

I used to do junk removal, and people would constantly be getting rid of boxes and boxes of DVDs and VHS tapes. I kept a couple hundred from that time, and have since added to the collection with finds at garage sales, record and book shops. Anything that I don't have and can't find from one of those sources, I will torrent.

Thanks!

You will definitely never see me defend Clarence Thomas, I just needed to point out that this isn't a partisan thing in this one specific instance. Democrats are frequently bad politicians too, it's just not a solid requirement like it is for the GOP.

Nah, Menendez is actually corrupt, this isn’t the first time he’s been in trouble for this. New Jersey politicians in particular seem to be just shamelessly corrupt, regardless of party affiliation.

Looks like it has Pam Grier in it, which bumps it up a few spots. Maybe I’ll watch this one tonight.

I didn’t know there was a sequel. Without Combs or Kurtwood Smith I’m not sure how interested I’d be in it, but it goes on the list nonetheless.

I was also distracted by how much Christopher Lambert looks like Thomas Jane (The Punisher, Deep Blue Sea) in this. They are nearly identical, apart from the tips of their noses, and it's weird. I love seeing actor doppelgangers like that, especially when they play similar roles like these two guys frequently do.

My thoughts are that you are literally pulling a conclusion that the numbers don't support out of your ass because you 'feel' the numbers are probably higher. The entire premise is flawed from the beginning anyway, because any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn't make anyone involved safer. Any interaction between two gun wielding individuals is similarly not a case of a good guy preventing violence. If neither had guns, neither would get shot. It is literally that simple.

I am absolutely not the one being obtuse here. Nothing you have claimed here is supported by actual evidence, unlike the pro-gun control position, and I'm not prepared to base our gun policy on vibes alone. You can spend all day saying 'that's different!' but the facts are not on your side.

I did read the article, and you are not understanding what the article is claiming. All of those events have been counted, as a separate category of firearm incident, and gun-advocacy groups want them counted a different way. The total number of gun-related events is not in dispute, only whether they make good propaganda points for the death cult side of the argument. They are trying to claim that a 'good guy with a gun' frequently prevents violence, and that is simply not what the data presented shows. They are trying to claim that a methodological error has been made, when the reality is that they are just wrong and trying to lie about it.

At this point you are arguing that gun reform can't work simply because Americans are special. You are incorrect, and your position isn't supported by anything other than propaganda.