Explain to me why parks make people more dangerous.

[Tim01]

I just came back from town. I carried my gun to the drug store twice, the Subway, hardware store, coffee shop, the toy store,and the sports shop. I walked to a lot of these places passing lots of people. I do this ALL the time. I am not the only one. I know a lot of people in this town who carry every single day. IT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL.
So why in the world would I be any different in a park than I am in all of the other places where I go?

[virgogal]

1. I can't be the only one who has no idea what you are talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. The general response to the 'guns in national parks' ruling is

that people will be shooting the place up.

Which makes the OP something of a callout, but probably not actually against the rules.

[virgogal]

43. Thanks. I had no idea the OP was referring to National Parks--now

the post makes a little more sense.

[TheWraith]

88. I don't think it qualifies as a callout if you're not referring directly to a DUer.

While some DUers have been willing to say such ridiculous things, quoting a general viewpoint doesn't rise to the level of a specific call-out.

[Electric Monk]

90. An infinite number of rednecks with an infinite number of shotguns would eventually

reproduce all of the works of Shakespeare in braile :o

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Where is this hellhole that is so dangerous that you need to pack heat wherever you go?

I want to avoid such places.

[Tim01]

7. Voted one of the top 10 small towns in the country.

Welcome to Virginia. Nice people who are adult enough to carry guns as responsibly as they drive cars.

[proteus_lives]

15. It's called Earth.

Feel free to check out when ever you're ready.

[depakid]

23. Horsey sums it up perfectly:

[Tim01]

27. That lie doesn't really play so well. And the numbers show you are wrong.

Permit holders walking around with guns in lots of places, and the result is a non-event. You conclude you should be afraid. That's pretty irrational.

[farmout rightarm]

45. I'm trying to figure out what kind of idiot would find that cartoon useful.

:shrug:

[paulsby]

54. fear canard

take 1

[gorfle]

75. The tired old "fear" canard.

Ah, the tired old fear canard.

We are modern man living in modern times. We have developed the means to provide ourselves with tools to overcome adverse situations. We equip ourselves with these tools not because we live in some sort of state of abject fear, but because the tools have become cheap, easily acquirable insurance against the possibilities, even rare ones, of adverse situations we may face.

Thus we equip ourselves with things like insurance, spare tires, seat belts, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and guns, because they provide us with the tools necessary to overcome a variety of adverse situations.

The cartoon falsely conveys the idea that anyone who equips themselves with the modern tools available to help us in adverse situations is a cowardly, simpering idiot, and a "wimp".

[SteveM]

79. Deep-seated prejudice and stereotypes are the bread & butter of prohibitionists.nt

[paulsby]

53. need canard

take 1

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Same place I carry a CPR shield

It's called Earth.

[gorfle]

74. How about these hellholes?

Where are the hellholes that are so dangerous that you need insurance?
Where are the hellholes that are so dangerous that you need spare tires?
Where are the hellholes that are so dangerous that you need smoke detectors?
Where are the hellholes that are so dangerous that you need first aid kits?
Where are the hellholes that are so dangerous that you need seat belts?

Just because one can afford the means of preparedness does not mean that they live in "hellholes".

[frebrd]

3. Beats me! ....

Do you have some weird sort of reaction to parks or something?

:shrug:

Edited to add:
Didn't really think you did....I don't understand it, either!

[SteveM]

80. This has been a debate on these threads for several months...

A new law will make it legal to carry firearms in national parks. Those who support the law cite the possibility of being attacked by (most often) two-legged creatures who are drawn to large, thinly-patrolled areas to commit crimes. (You will note that park rangers are authorized to and quite often carry firearms as they recognize that fear.) Some cite the danger of animal attack in a few parks. Most cited, however, is the argument that travelers who carry legally, must (somewhere, some how) along the trip give up or store a firearm before they can cross into or through a park, or be potentially arrested for breaking some gun law.

This is not so much a problem in national forests, refuges, wildlife management areas and some state parks where guns are quite often NOT prohibited, and have not had such prohibitions for generations. I hope this helps.

[Chemisse]

4. What are you talking about?

What happens in the park?

[oneshooter]

11. Soon to be changes in the Law

That will allow CCL carriers to not have to leave their Second Amendment rights at the gate. This will also allow you to protect yourself from the rising amount of crime in the National Parks.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

13. I would invite you to calm down, stop being insulting, and try to think.

Secluded parks are favorite hunting places for criminals. That is the way it is. Parks are more dangerous than urban areas. If you go to a park the odds are higher you will be the victim of a criminal.

Also a fact is that people are going on about their lives all the time without concern for the large number of concealed guns around them. That is because nothing happens.

Why do you "feel" relaxed in a place where a criminal in more likely to try to hurt you? That is irrational.

Why do you "feel" afraid of concealed guns around you when they never cause a problem? That is irrational.

Your feelings are backward from reality. Reality is not going to change to conform to your irrational feelings.

[daleanime]

6. Note to self.....

Stay away from VA:hide:

[oneshooter]

10. Then you might conceder

moving to Wisconsin or Illinois. New York issues CCL to it's citizens.


I hear that Canada is nice this time of year.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[daleanime]

19. Got no problem with guns...

conceal or otherwise, its the attitude that worry me, I'm headed to Subway dear, where's the Smith and Weston? Plenty of gun owners around here, including most the family, but no one packs heat to the drug store!

[Tim01]

21. Only carry a gun when you are going to need it? Is that it?

That is a monumentally short sighted attitude. A person who thinks they are going to figure out when and where they will need their gun, is frankly an idiot. And a really arrogant idiot at that.

Criminals have it too easy. Maybe there is a reason so many of them have so much disdain for average people.


Pants, belt, wallet, keys, pocket knife, mini flashlight, gun, spare mag, phone. In that order.





"Honey, I don't really think we're going to be in a car wreck this month, should I cancel the car insurance?"

"Yeah, were not going on any trips or anything just driving to work. Cancel it. You know, I think we can all skip the seat belts, too. Those things are just a nuisance anyway, we've never needed them yet, ever. Lets just relax a little this month. We'll put the auto insurance back on next month if we really think we need it."
Brilliant.

[daleanime]

24. Your inspired logic has won me over...

we should fight for legislation requiring every adult to be armed at all times.:sarcasm:

Guns=auto insurance? A gun is a tool for killing, when I hunted (as a younger man) I used them. Now that I no longer hunt I do not own one. Possession of one in no way provides any degree of safety. I believe that there is no situation that can't be made worse by the addition of a gun or two, you believe different.

I may not be brilliant, but I am faithful to myself.

[Tim01]

28. You need to get control of your emotions. You are not rational.

People defend themselves from badguys all the time. It's ridiculous to try to say people don't do it. There is a 911 phone recording on the net right now of a woman who is on the phone with the dispatcher while a stalker smashes in her front door, smashes in her bedroom door and starts strangling her. She puts 2 bullets in him while he is strangling her.

Now if you want to tell me it would be better if she didn't have a gun, then I'll just agree to disagree. Because you know as well as I do he would have strangled her to death if she didn't have the gun. If that is your point of view, better for her to be strangled than to shoot him,fine, just say so.

[daleanime]

39. "Control of your emotions."

My apologies. Was tired and dislike being called 'short sighed'.

But rational I'm. Yes sometimes people do defend themselves(and yes I'm glad that that women is OK), but are you really going to tell me that no one is ever shoot by mistake? But I also feel a little relieved that she had her gun at home with her and not out in public.

And I'll match stories with you. As a young man going to school(hey there UB!) I was spending a saturday afternoon walking around the downtown area. When a large kind of ragged man was in the process of passing me he put out his hand, well he way I was raised is that you shake the mans hand, so I did. And he wouldn't let go! Now my brain is running in circles, am I getting mugged? Is he just a panhandler? What's going on? It took me a good 8-10 minutes to finally get my hand back.

Now your view point is that I should have been armed, because he could have been a mugger. My view point is that if I had had a gun on me I probably would have tried to drawn it(with the wrong hand) and some one would have possible died.

So who's right? You've chosen your path, god bless you and good luck with that: but do not demean or belittle the way I want to live my life. Oh, and the guy from downtown? Friends in school told me later that he was kind of famous for being overly friendly.

[farmout rightarm]

47. A guy held onto your hand for 8-10 minutes and all you could do was philosophize?

Yeah...I really believe that story.


:eyes:

[daleanime]

66. Then why spent any time responding to me....

if your going to do me the discourtesy of not believing me?


And no I did not philosophize, I like philosophy, it makes sense; basically I sweat-ed while listening to him mumble on about something.

[Tim01]

51. Uh, huh. I had a big guy grab hold my hand.

He also had piss all down the front of him. Grabbed my hand in a friendly kind of way and wouldn't let it go. Went on and on about what a nasty piece of shit his dad, a D.C. cop, had been. And about how I looked like some famous old timey boxer. I had my boy with me, who was a little freaked out by the whole thing. I also had my carry gun, spare mag, and all my other gear. I let the guy go on for a while then insisted that I need to get going. And my boy insisted I go wash my hands.
No blood in the streets or anything. Even with my "attitude" about carrying a gun to the store all the time. And I know for sure within 5 square blocks there were 4 other guys carrying,and 1 woman, and probably a lot more than that. All of us walking around not shooting anybody.

So your idea of people who do carry, is just flat out wrong.

[daleanime]

71. Currently my only idea about people who carry guns...

it that their fairly unforgiving of anyone holding different views on carrying guns.



This concludes my time as a chew toy, have a good life.

[NewMoonTherian]

87. I think a lot of the "unforgiving" attitude...

stems from the fact that the most vocal of those with a different view on carrying guns are actively trying to impose their views on the others through force of law. I understand that carrying a gun is not the life for most people. Almost everyone around me chooses not to carry a gun. I would personally prefer some of them did, because I keep getting conscripted to go with them to places they don't feel comfortable going themselves, but I don't get pushy about it.

All I ask is that people who choose not to arm themselves don't begrudge me my choice to do so.

[Abq_Sarah]

89. Personally,

I don't care about your views nor do I want you to change them.

If, by chance, you start agitating to have your personal opinion about firearms ownership codified into law, that will change my position.

[farmout rightarm]

46. Gotta love someone who quits using one of his constitutional rights then decides nobody else

should be able to.

Thanks for nothing.

[daleanime]

63. Again, please notice that I didn't call for gun control...

and your welcome:shrug:

[paulsby]

55. arm everyone canard

take 1

man, the SAME arguments used in thread after thread. the same illogical, counterfactual ridiculous ones.

need canard
fear canard
arm everyone canard

etc.

[daleanime]

62. You did notice the sarcasm right?

that means it not a real argument. I still trying to figure out why you guys are trying to argue with me!:shrug:

Not calling for any ban, just if your carrying to the local store, I'd rather not be around, is that alright?

[paulsby]

72. you'll never know

that;'s the nifty thing about CCW. i guarantee if you walk around seattle, bellevue, kirkland, enumclaw, etc. for any period of time you will walk RIGHT BY somebody who is carrying. we're everywhere. in stores, restaurants, college campuses! (in wa state perfectly legal) etc.

oh noes

[gorfle]

77. "Arm everyone"

we should fight for legislation requiring every adult to be armed at all times. :sarcasm:

Every time someone advocates for people to make a choice about bearing arms this comes out, "Oh, let's arm everyone!. No one is advocating arming everyone. What we are advocating is that law-abiding people should be able to make a choice for themselves about whether or not they can bear arms.

Guns=auto insurance? A gun is a tool for killing, when I hunted (as a younger man) I used them. Now that I no longer hunt I do not own one. Possession of one in no way provides any degree of safety. I believe that there is no situation that can't be made worse by the addition of a gun or two, you believe different.

I highly recommend you watch/listen to these two YouTube videos:

In this recording, a woman waits in her home, on the phone with police, while a criminal breaks in. When he starts to choke her, she shoots and kills him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

In this recording, a woman waits in her home, on the phone with police, while a criminal breaks in. He then proceeds to physically and sexually assault her before the police can arrive and arrest the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

Advance warning; The above links are real recordings of actual and traumatic. But I believe they demonstrate how a situation can't be made worse by the addition of a gun or two.

[paulsby]

84. exactly. abortion analogy

if i advocate that women should have the CHOICE to abort (as they should and do) only a crazy would say i am saying "EVERY WOMAN SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION"

and when i say that law abiding people (as evidenced by their history) should have the CHOICE to carry, i am saying it should be a choice.

same thing.

you can actually poke a lot of holes in the anti's canards, by analogizing to abortion.

[SteveM]

82. Respectfully, the "requiring every adult to be armed" line is the latest ...

from die-hard gun-controllers; it is becoming a veritable chant. This is the result of gun-controllers being completely routed in this culture war. As a result, Second Amendment advocates, in the form of powerful pressure groups, have been pushing for more liberalized gun policies, some of which include the right to carry in parks, open-carry, and an to the hideously ironic "gun-free" zones; this is the way of all political victory.

In response, gun-controllers have now floated the "every adult to be armed" straw man in an effort to paint 2A advocates as extremist and bent on dictating (as silly as it sounds) that everyone must have a gun. Of course, this makes no sense as even pro-2A folks do not support anything like this; but the objective is demonization and smear, which have always been the chief weapons of gun-controllers.

There is, BTW, ample evidence to show that lawful gun-owners have prevented many robberies, break-ins, home invasions and other violent attacks by use of a firearm, a use which rarely involves actually firing the weapon, so I cannot agree with your belief "...that there is no situation that can't be made worse by the addition of a gun or two..." This is not borne out by the evidence.

BTW, I think the NRA and other pro-2A organizations are the most effective special interest group (in terms of legislation and literally changing the political landscape) in the U.S., save for those organizations which can be umbrella'd under GLBT groups.

[paulsby]

85. compare it to abortion

i am pro choice

on guns, and reproductive rights

pro RKBA people are not saying to "arm everybody" any more than pro choice activists are saying "every woman should get an abortion"

in BOTH cases, we are saying it should be a lawful CHOICE (in the case of RKBA assuming they are not a felon, etc.)

it's pretty ironic that most anti-gunners are likely pro choice, yet use the illogica of the anti-choicers to promote their anti-RKBA choice.

so ironic i could cut it with a ladle

[PavePusher]

22. Ahem...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Subway%2C+shooting%2C+robbery&FORM=IEFM&src=IE-SearchBox

Doh!!

[daleanime]

25. Shocking news...

bad things happen. So the ability to kill more people makes this better how?

[X_Digger]

30. The inability to defend oneself makes this better how? n/t

[daleanime]

40. The ability to kill people makes this better how? n/t

[X_Digger]

52. By giving me a chance to survive whereas unarmed.. not so much. n/t

[daleanime]

65. And I choose different....

this is my right correct?

[X_Digger]

78. Your choice.. for you. not for me and mine. n/t

[SteveM]

83. Well, I'll try to answer this question. It is not the "killing" part...

it is the "preventing" part. The objective when using a firearm in self-defense is to stop the attack (self-defense firearms are usually rated by "stopping power," the ability to make an attacker stop what they are doing). Many attackers die as a result, but that is not the objective. Frankly, things are "better" when an attack is stopped, by death or otherwise: the victim is saved, a thug who has gone feral within civilized society is stopped or killed. That IS a better outcome than a dead victim and a thug who is still feral and still loose.

[PavePusher]

31. Ah, I see...

You entirely miss the difference between "self-defense" and "the ability to kill more people".

Anti-gun and Anti-self-defense people make this mistake all the time...

[daleanime]

41. Anti?

How am I anti anything? I call for no ban on personal ownership of guns. Have you seen any thing where I do that? I state that I want to stay away from those who do carry their guns every where, as some one who doesn't have a gun thats perfectly sensible right?

For the rest of my response check post #39.

[paulsby]

56. it's not sensible

and stay out of WA state. we carry.

it's a very safe state.

[daleanime]

67. Thank you for your kind advice...

Have a good day.

[PavePusher]

58. You'd shoot a man for shaking your hand?!?

You should not have guns.

Most of us are a little more discriminating when it comes to actually using deadly force.

[daleanime]

64. Pardon me please read post...

a larger then me man(and I'm not small), dressed fairly ragged, who refused to let up of my hand-spent ten minutes thinking I was going to be mugged. Is mugging one of your reason for 'self-defense'?

[Tim01]

60. "thats perfectly sensible right?"

No, not really.

People carry guns, and absolutely nothing happens. So, you want to stay away from them as a result. That, is not sensible.

[daleanime]

68. So no one was ever been shoot by mistake?

nt

[Tim01]

73. I've never heard of it.

I've heard of enough people at their own houses doing dumb stuff with guns. And I've heard of cases of mistaken identity, cops shoot other plainclothes cops often enough. But I have actually never heard of it. So in reality, even with 5,000,000 people carrying concealed it is still extremely rare. Rarer than getting hit by lightning if I remember correctly. I know a few people who have been hit by lightning, including me, so there you go.

Does it happen? I would have to think so. But I've never heard of it.

[NewMoonTherian]

61. I can see the logic in your position on the surface, but...

it isn't possible to stay away from dangerous people with dangerous weapons, because you don't know who they are. That being the case, wouldn't you rather also have honest people with dangerous weapons around to engage the scumbags?

But, if you still feel you'd rather not be around people legally carrying firearms, the best way to ensure that would be to pass open carry laws, so you can more readily identify and avoid them.

[daleanime]

69. Have to say that I don't know....

never considered open carry laws one way or the other, but wouldn't that just let any 'scumbags' know what their first target should be? Or where their could get a gun if they did have one?


My point is that 2 or 3 people with guns are more dangerous then 1 person with a gun, this is what I believe.

[NewMoonTherian]

86. I respect that.

And the open carry remark was at least half tongue-in-cheek. I promote open carry because I frankly believe the government has no authority to deny that right to citizens who haven't broken the law. That said, it's tactically a bad idea for exactly the reasons you cited. One reason I would like open carry is that I could carry concealed, but not worry about getting into legal trouble if it accidentally slips into view.

Your assertion "2 or 3 people with guns are more dangerous than 1 person with a gun" doesn't take into account the vetting to which CCW holders are subject. A criminal(the "1 person with a gun" in your hypothetical situation) has a gun for the purpose of killing or intimidating innocent people. A CCW holder has one for the purpose of meeting force with force in defense of his life. This is borne out by the meager number of crimes committed by CCW holders.

I understand that feeling and intuition also play a major role in people's conclusions on this subject, but that swings both ways. My grandfather, an uncle, and a family friend have all had to use guns in defense of their lives, two of whom had to do so outside their homes, so the need for concealed carry is something I firmly believe in.

[Tim01]

35. "Smith and Weston?" Are you sure your family has guns?

Just curious if you made up that whole thing about knowing people who have guns, in order to give yourself some street cred.

If you've never been around anybody who has guns, then you are debating from an uneducated point of view.

[daleanime]

42. Was being...

glib.

Dennis got his deer this year(got a couple of steaks from him), John failed and is still being teased about it, and Dad had to give up hunting since the heart attack.

And why would I want 'street cred' if my points are good, their good; if not, then their not.

[gorfle]

76. Understandable.

Got no problem with guns...conceal or otherwise, its the attitude that worry me, I'm headed to Subway dear, where's the Smith and Weston? Plenty of gun owners around here, including most the family, but no one packs heat to the drug store

That's understandable, daleanime. I don't carry a firearm either, though I reconsidering it after the school shooting this week at my school, in the building where I have class.

See, most people don't give it a second thought. I mean, if it didn't come with your car, how many people would bother carrying a spare tire around? You hardly ever need it, right? I don't think I've ever had a flat tire in my life, come to think of it.

But when you need one, boy howdy do you need one. People who go to the trouble and expense to carry a firearm are simply being cautious. You may think they are being overly cautious, but given how seldom such CCW permit holders are ever involved in crime, no one should have any reason for concern about such preparedness.

[SteveM]

81. That's right! Armed drug-addicts never stick-up drug stores! nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Do you avoid traveling to Vermont? They have even fewer gun laws than VA..

And oddly enough, lower crime rates than NY or VA.

[daleanime]

70. Haven't had the chance to avoid it yet...

but thanks for the word.

[Ernesto]

8. I had a permit to carry for a couple of years.....................

Never needed the gun then.
No permit over the last 30 years, so how in the world did I survive that long without it?:wtf:

[spin]

12. Statistically, you probably will never need a gun for self defense...

in your home or on the street.

I've never had to use a firearm for defense and I'm almost 64. I have owned firearms for 47 years and have had a concealed carry permit for 13 years. I've submitted the forms to renew my carry permit for 7 more years.

Why?

Do I expect to have to use a weapon for self defense? No. In fact I hope and pray I never have to.

I'm glad you never had to use a firearm. May everybody else be as fortunate as you and me.

But if in the next few years, one of us is attacked by a violent criminal with an intention of killing or severely injuring his victim - one of us will be armed and one won't. And if neither of us is attacked, then the fact that I have a concealed carry permit and carry will be irrelevant.

But since I have the choice, I'll carry. The S&W model 642 revolver that I carry is convenient to slip into my front pants pocket and weighs so little that I hardly notice it. And you probably will never carry. No big deal.

It's your choice and it's my choice. Fortunately, we both have the right to chose. I don't know about you, but I'm damn glad to live in a country and a state that grants me that right providing I meet some reasonable requirements.

But to be honest, I would still appreciate living in a country where the government trusted its citizens enough to let them own firearms - whether I chose to own them or not.

[Tim01]

14. Some people never need their fire insurance.

Actually, I think a person is about as likely to need a gun as fire insurance. That's just based on people I know and stuff like that, nothing scientific. Still I know LOTS of people who have fire insurance, probably 100 times as many as carry guns. Of people needing them, it's about equal.

Do you think people are silly for having fire insurance in spite of never using it?

[PavePusher]

17. Lucky you...

You didn't win the crime-victim-lottery.

Unfortunately, your experience is not the Universal Truth.

[rd_kent]

37. And you have never been struck by lightening either. So what?

[slackmaster]

9. Because there are no streets in parks

Blood will have to run in the streams.

[farmout rightarm]

48. Haha...good one. Unfortunately it will go 20,000 feet over some heads.

:shrug:

[Glassunion]

16. Be careful man...

There are evil forrests out there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara

Just sayin... }(

[PavePusher]

18. Where?!?!

There's all these trees blocking my view....!

:rofl:

[Glassunion]

26. Are they

The Screaming Trees?


Crickets...


Ah booooooooo!


Oh, by the way... Don't mean to get all philosophical, but if one does fall, and nothing is around to hear it... It does not make a sound.

[aliendroid]

29. because the antis...

The antis have created an artificial feeling amongst people that certain places are special no gun zones, but the truth is that they are just simply trying to increase the number of no gun zones until even your house is a no gun zone. Stop them here and now.

They told the people in the UK, the registration would not lead to a full gun ban. ok so they started gun registration
They told the people in the UK, the ban on the scary guns would not lead to a full gun ban.

LIARS!!!!

Today UK has a total gun ban.

You can't even let them gain an inch, even if it seems logical, do not let them gain ground, we must gain ground.

[Euromutt]

33. I notice that so far, nobody's managed a coherent reply to the OP

That is, a reply that actually explains why we should expect the entry into force of the Coburn Amendment and the overturning of the Seattle Parks & Rec Dept's ban on firearms on its property to result in shootouts over the use of the fire pit, local wildlife getting blasted, blood-soaked hiking trails, etc. etc.

I have noticed quite a few people trying to introduce red herrings, though, e.g. "why do you feel the need to carry at all?" Not germane to the question at hand, people: let's take the concealed carry as a given and answer the question why Tim is evidently able to go about his business around town without brandishing or shooting anyone, but is presumed to be incapable to resisting the urge to do the second he sets foot in a Seattle or National Park?

[PavePusher]

34. It's that gun distortion field, it starts at park borders... Dontchyaknow... n/t

[Glassunion]

36. Absolutly...

That Smoky the Bear dude is a huge GOP Bradyite...

Black helicopters, men in black, Patriot Act, tin foil hats and trees with cameras. Trying to keep me from filling my National Parks with some serious amounts of lead. I got your screaming trees!!!





What were we talking about?

:sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

57. Dunno.

Oh, look, beer!

:toast:

[rd_kent]

38. Did you expect anything different? They have no rational argument, all you get is the same old shit

over and over and over.

[farmout rightarm]

50. And apparently expecting a different result.

It's a symptom.

[farmout rightarm]

49. Obviously because no coherent rebuttal exists...

:shrug:

[farmout rightarm]

44. Parks make people do all kinds of insane things...like sleep on the ground

and start fires. And run amok murdering every person in sight.