Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (795214)	7/15/2014 1:28:18 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1579809

... In Chicago, a city of 2.7 million people, fewer than 8,000 people are licensed to own a gun – less than 0.3%. The city’s gun-homicide rate is about 18 per 100,000. In Vermont, by contrast, where 42% of the population are gun owners, the rate of gun murders in 2010 was 0.3 per 100,000. So Chicago has a gun-homicide rate about 60 times Vermont’s, despite Vermonters being 150 times as likely to own a gun. To put that another way, in Chicago the ratio of the gun-homicide rate to the percentage of citizens who legally own guns is nine thousand times higher than it is in Vermont. ......... – Comments — John writes: The case of Vermont and guns is becoming a little more complicated: The other day I hosted a get together where a Vermont woman––a transplant from Massachusetts––mentioned that her state had the “worst gun laws in the country. There are no laws.” She went on to explain that Vermont’s guns laws were written for “farmers and hunters,” and needed to change fast. No doubt they will change, and for the worse. This year the governor of Vermont devoted his entire State of the State address to the exploding heroin and crime problem there. Even the rural parts of the state are becoming infested with drugs, gun running, and even gang activity. Nothing on this scale existed even a few years ago. I might have thought these two things unrelated, but a month ago I was at a dinner party where the man sitting next to me happened to be a Vermont state representative. He talked about the problems of drug addiction, gun running, crime and gangs. There is a direct pipeline between Vermont and its old nemesis, New York. Drugs come in to Vermont; while guns, legally and easily purchased, go back. But then he let slip the actual cause of this sudden reversal in the state’s quality of life. It is almost entirely related to the influx of immigrants from Latin America, many of whom come to work at agricultural jobs Vermonters no longer want, but bring with them a host of social pathologies including gang activity. Of course, he quickly added that it was not his intent to “bash these people.” In other words, “the worst gun laws in the country” were never that big a problem for indigenous Vermonters, with their long history of coupling this relative freedom with responsible use. But now, with the arrival to the state of ethnic and cultural diversity, the lax gun laws are identified as the problem, and they need to be changed in the interests of keeping everyone “safe.” As the Vermont legislature eventually takes up the matter of tightening its gun laws, no doubt the real reasons impelling the change will be studiously ignored by a room full of elected officials who understand quite well what is going on, but are unwilling to bring it into the open. Once again, liberalism shows itself very good at spotting problems, but unwilling or unable to come to grips with actual causes and effects. If countervailing facts come to the liberal mind, they are quickly quarantined and neutralized. If I had pointed to the obvious fact that the proximate cause of the drug wave was the recent cultural shift, I would have been, not so much argued with, as shunned and disinvited from future parties. This is one reason I no longer talk about political matters with my neighbors. The only people still worth speaking with are the younger generation whose minds have not yet been completely taken over. http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/07/gun-control-lies/#more-71438

To: tejek who wrote (795214)	7/15/2014 1:32:23 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579809

It was an improved month, nothing more. Until this is fixed, nobody believes we are turning a corner... "The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 275,000 in June to 7.5 million. The number of involuntary part-time workers is down over the year but has shown no clear trend in recent months. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.) In June, 2.0 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 554,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)" bls.gov