« prev   random   next »

1
5

Where lack of gun control has gotten us

By Dan8267 following x   2017 Oct 4, 8:54am 4,398 views   61 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    




But hey, we can't conclude anything from this trend, right? This is a problem that should just be ignored because it's never the right time to discuss it.

#politics
#crime

« First    « Previous     Comments 21 - 60 of 60     Last »

22   deepcgi   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 5, 9:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why do you trust the police with guns?
What about private security? Private body guards?

Let’s say we eliminated all guns in the hands of citizens with a magic wand. There will still need to be two private security guys following behind George Soros, Zuckerburg, Musk, Ellison, Tim Rice, and Leo DeCaprio with guns.

How did those private security guys get their license? How do I get my license? Do only rich people get private security? How much do the security guys start making in that situation - heart surgeon salaries?

As far as splitting the atom. Yeah, they thought of that. It’s illegal. A friend of mine has been with the US Department of Radiation Control. They inspect every single dentist and medical office that utilizes equipment that emits radiation, no matter how minute. That is what he does, and has been doing for nearly thirty years now.

He even got a call to a geiger counter reading at their city dump one time. It was coming from a huge load of rotten bananas. Everyone of them emitting the common uber low amounts of radioactive potassium. enough to trigger someone’s little meter.

I don’t know what the founding fathers expected, but i’ll wager they told Mr Shotgun Sheldon that if he wanted to try mounting a 9 foot “Long Tom” cannon on his sturdy old covered wagon pulled by his four best nags, they’d have wished him the best of luck. Of course the first time he fired it, he and the cannon would end up one hundred feet back up the road plastered against Mrs Revere’s prized cherry trees.
23   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 5, 9:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

deepcgi says
As far as splitting the atom. Yeah, they thought of that. It’s illegal


But that's the point. That's infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights.
24   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 5, 10:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
So you're going to expect other posters to search the Internet to try to find where you get your delusional information?


Wow-that's coming from a guy who told a poster recently that google is their friend? And refuses to every post source information?
25   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 5, 10:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

"The shooting must not be identifiably gang, drug, or organized crime related." This is a judgement call that online researchers wont be able to make in a scientific way.

I see no way that your mass shooting chart can reconcile with the general trend of lower murder rates. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

"A trivial Google search easily reveals the news article associated with the image."

Perhaps, but that isnt the correct search. The chart does not measure the scale of the individual shootings. It measures the NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS. I'm sure you are smart enough to know the difference.

I downloaded the MSA database. It is 400 links to individual crime articles about each event. Um... absolutely impossible to verify their process unless you choose to totally redo their research. This chart is still fishy as F. 400 mass shootings in 2015 not related to drugs or gangs as compared to no more than a handful in previous years? Something is amiss... and no I dont have time to go through all of it and figure out why. Neither does anyone else here with a life.
26   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 11:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

deepcgi says
Why do you trust the police with guns?


I don't. I also don't trust our government with nuclear weapons, but I'll tolerate that over individuals having nuclear weapons any day.

Why are guns so special in contrast to every other weapon in existence? Why are guns the one and only arm covered by the Second Amendment? Why doesn't the Second Amendment use the word guns instead of arms if that's the case?

deepcgi says
What about private security? Private body guards?


No and no.

In any case, Australia has heavy gun control, but still allows some guns with restrictions and background checks, and they permanently solved their mass shooting problem. Why do Americans refuse to learn from other countries that solve the exact same problems we have in America? As all Americans learned in high school, if your too stupid to solve the problem yourself, cheat off the foreigner.

deepcgi says
There will still need to be two private security guys following behind George Soros, Zuckerburg, Musk, Ellison, Tim Rice, and Leo DeCaprio with guns.


Why? Did no security exist before guns? Do those security guards need land mines as well? How about tanks? How about RPGs? How about Apache helicopters? How about nukes? Again, why guns and only guns?

deepcgi says

As far as splitting the atom. Yeah, they thought of that. It’s illegal.


A circular argument. Guns should be legal because they are legal. Nukes should be illegal because they are illegal. These two statements say nothing.

joeyjojojunior says
deepcgi says
As far as splitting the atom. Yeah, they thought of that. It’s illegal


But that's the point. That's infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights.


This is true. The founding fathers got far more things wrong than right -- slavery, elections, who could vote, division of power -- and they were neither noble nor geniuses. They could not have foreseen modern weapons from automated guns to flame throwers to smart bombs to nukes to land mines to attack helicopters. The pinnacle of technology in their time was the musket.

This is exactly why the founding fathers used the word "arms", not "guns". They meant that the people should have access to all weapons the government has access to so that they could revolt if necessary. They wrote about this extensively. Hell, they just got done fighting a revolution.

So the intent of the Second Amendment is that the people do have uninfringed access to nuclear weapons and all other military grade hardware in case they have to use it against our military. This, of course, would be extremely stupid and everybody knows it. So we repealed the Second Amendment in all but paper. That amendment has not been taken seriously since at least WWII. Some people pretend that the Second Amendment is about guns and only guns, but it's not and what it says demands that people can build, buy, and possess nukes. So the Second Amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on and we should just be honest and officially repeal it. Then the public can finally debate what rights, if any, people should have to possess weapons and what kind of weapons.

Hell, encryption is considered a weapon by our laws and you don't have a right to that. So the government gave a big fuck you to the Second Amendment a long time ago.
27   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

me123 says
Dan8267 says
My statements are true. Yours are false. That is an indisputable fact.


Really? You're going to deny that cars, cheeseburgers, and lots of other everyday activities kill less people than guns?


I said no such thing, you lying piece of shit.

You argued that the graph in the original post was presenting false information. You lied. I have shown you lied. You double down on the lie. Now you are trying to confuse the issue to distract from the fact that you have been exposed as a habitual liar, and an unconvincing one. Next you will deny raping goats.
28   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 11:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

me123 says
Dan8267 says
A trivial Google search easily reveals the news article associated with the image


So you're going to expect other posters to search the Internet to try to find where you get your delusional information?


If you are too damn lazy to even do a three second Google search, then you have no case in refuting a person's evidence. The image itself clearly provides the source of the data. There is no requirement that anyone has to provide you with a hyperlink to the data. You know that books, periodicals, and government documents on microfiche don't do that, right? Are those not real evidence to you, piggy? Learn to use a library, dumb ass.
29   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Oct 5, 11:13am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Making Dan a moderator of anything is a fucking joke.
30   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Perhaps, but that isnt the correct search. The chart does not measure the scale of the individual shootings. It measures the NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS. I'm sure you are smart enough to know the difference.


Yes, the number of all shootings and the number of victims of such shootings is far greater which more greatly supports my point that gun control is necessary.
31   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 11:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
and no I dont have time to go through all of it and figure out why. Neither does anyone else here with a life.


An uninformed opinion deserves no respect. If you aren't willing to spend whatever time it takes for your opinions to be well-informed, then you should not express those opinions to others. It's not worth our time to hear your unfounded objections and opinions on subjects that your are ignorant of.
32   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 5, 12:12pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

me123 says
You always know when you win an argument with Dan when he goes to the gutter with his reply.


Spot on.

Though uou forgot his interim strawman attempt followed quickly by judgement regarding the fantasy strawman, finally ending in total gutter replies.
33   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 5, 12:15pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Dan8267 says
An uninformed opinion deserves no respect


You are suggesting that someone needs to find, read, and organize every article on a shooting to have an informed opinion? Go ahead, show us how informed you are on the chart you posted. I've downloaded their silly database, and even read through it. Have you? The point you are missing is that the only way to test their conclusions in the graph would be to recreate the entire process.

Your logical thinking is yet again, terrible.
34   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 5, 12:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
You are suggesting that someone needs to find, read, and organize every article on a shooting to have an informed opinion?


No, that's a false dichotomy, but you should have some knowledge. Your opinions are based on willful ignorance, and that is inexcusable.
35   deepcgi   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 5, 3:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan:

I can only answer some of the questions right now, but you may be surprised that I agree with you on most of the points.

Personally, I wouldn't trust ONLY the police having guns. The word "gun" existed in the late 18th century, but I expect Arms or Armaments are words carefully chosen so as to not limit the definition. That’s why I mentioned the cannon. Unfortunately, many poor people don't even trust the police to show up on time when they need them.

I completely agree with your point on private security if citizens cannot bear arms. Kimmel and Soros and “Cold Dead Hand" Jim Carrey are monumentally hypocritical bastards every time they leave home with their "private, legal, licensed protection". If the citizens can't have guns, than neither can they or the guards at the Late Show. They should be just as afraid that their hired Guido's heat will be confiscated as Bobby Joe Redneck ever was.

Nuclear weapon production, testing, storage, and disposal endangers the lives and personal liberties of many, many people that would never be targeted by them. Notice that I never even mentioned the nuclear weapons actually being used as such. The nuke argument only ever comes up as a trump card attempt. Ironically, no pun intended this time.
36   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 4:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Dan8267 says
An uninformed opinion deserves no respect


You are suggesting that someone needs to find, read, and organize every article on a shooting to have an informed opinion?


A false dichotomy. One doesn't have to choose between being completely ignorant or reading everything ever written in history. You are just trying to cover up that your opinions are based on complete and willful ignorance.

CBOEtrader says
Your logical thinking is yet again, terrible.


There is nothing wrong with not respecting opinions based on ignorance and misinformation. I know that conservatives find this culturally offense, but ignorance is not respectable.
37   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 4:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

me123 says

You always know when you win an argument with Dan when he goes to the gutter with his reply.


Piggy makes thousands of "you're a faggot" insults, but cannot take it when someone reveals his affinity for animal husbandry. Hypocrisy much?

The fact that CBOEtrader is one of his buddies says all you need to know about that fool as well.
38   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 4:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says
If you are


anonymous says
Making Dan a moderator of anything is a fucking joke.


Piggy logs out immediately after posting bullshit and then posts more bullshit anonymously to look like someone else. He doesn't even wait 60 seconds between the posts. Anyone want to take a bet that I'm wrong, that the second post doesn't come from the same IP address as the first?

This is why
1. Anonymous posts should not be allowed.
2. Registering new users should require SMS verification making alts at least somewhat difficult and limited.
39   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 5:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

me123 says
Dan, you should really consider growing up and stop acting like a spoiled, crybaby second grader. Your immature rants and name calling get you ZERO respect here. Wonder why your love of goats thread has -7 Upvotes? Go look in the mirror!


I don't wonder at all. You have created dozens of alts. The rest of us have lives and don't have the time to waste creating an army of PatNet alts to rig like votes on a site with a very small user base. You really have nothing better to do.

me123 says
Anonymous posts have to be approved by Patrick before they get submitted to the forum.


If Patrick were policing every single anonymous post, he would not have let many of them through.

me123 says

See, even Patrick thinks you're a flaming asshole, since he lets those posts in.


Piggy, you are the only person on this site that Patrick has explicitly stated is a bad human being. You and Shrek are the only two idiots ever to be banned and to have their accounts deleted. 'Nuff said.
40   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 6:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

me123 says
Nice try, it sucks that Patrick thinks you're an asshole


I'm willing to be that is wrong. Are you man enough to take a bet?

Agree to this bet. If Patrick says he thinks I'm an asshole, I'll immediately leave PatNet and never come back. If Patrick says he does not think I'm an asshole, you will immediately leave PatNet and never come back. No alts. No posts. Nothing.

Are you willing to agree to this or are you a complete fucking pussy and liar? We already know the answer. You won't agree to it or you will renege once Patrick states his position. I know this for the exact same reason you shitted your pants and hide instead of meeting me at any neutral location. You are a coward, a liar, an imbecile, and a loser. You will chicken out of the above bet or renege on it. But hey, prove me wrong for the first and only time in your life.
41   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 6:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

So now you're claiming that Patrick is a lying sack of shit who would not be honest in the above bet. Wow, you are really a pussy. I mean, people throw the term pussy around just as an insult, but you really are a coward who cannot stand by his own statements. No wonder no woman would ever want you. Cowardice has never been sexy.
42   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 14, 6:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Also, it's nice that piggy thinks my coding skills are valuable. I know he didn't mean to pay me that compliment, but it's an inescapable conclusion from his childish insult.
43   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 15, 6:02am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says
deepcgi says
I’m not a gun guy, but I am an insatiable advocate of individual rights and personal liberty.


Why would the freedom to possess machines that fling mass projectiles be any more an individual right or personal liberty than the freedom to possess machines that split Uranium atoms or machines that invade human cells and alter their DNA in lethal ways? We certainly do not allow the latter two, so why the former?


Don't be daft.

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. They have been safely used for such purposes by the overwhelming majority of civilian owners since their invention. A responsible user can safely deploy these weapons without threatening the safety of others.

The uranium splitting machines are not practical for recreational or self defense use by individuals. They cannot safely be used for recreational or self defense purposes on the continental United States without threatening the safety of others.

Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.
44   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 15, 6:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says
Cowardice has never been sexy.


Dan has a lot of personal experience in not being sexy, so I take his word on the subject as reliable in this instance.
45   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Dan8267 says

Agree to this bet. If Patrick says he thinks I'm an asshole, I'll immediately leave PatNet and never come back. If Patrick says he does not think I'm an asshole, you will immediately leave PatNet and never come back. No alts. No posts. Nothing.


Jesus christ dan. Grow the fuck up. Just because piggy is a moron you don't have to match his stupidity post for post filling up the entire board with this 5 year olds on the playground bullshit. What does that make you? Insult him once because he deserves it for being the village idiot then ignore him.
46   joshuatrio   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 15, 7:26am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.


Quote of the year. You summed up Dan perfectly in this one sentence.
47   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
Don't be daft.

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. They have been safely used for such purposes by the overwhelming majority of civilian owners since their invention. A responsible user can safely deploy these weapons without threatening the safety of others.

The uranium splitting machines are not practical for recreational or self defense use by individuals. They cannot safely be used for recreational or self defense purposes on the continental United States without threatening the safety of others.

Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.


Talk about flawed reasoning.. Does the 2nd Amendment mention anything about hurling projectiles? Or recreational/defense purposes?

I'll answer that--NO.

Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?
48   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 15, 2:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Joey,

You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.
49   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 15, 2:49pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual.


Pot has recreational purposes. That does not make it a right.

As for self-defense, guns are worthless against the government, and fighting the government was the SOLE purpose of the Second Amendment. You need nukes to fight a nuclear power. So your entire analysis is wrong.

Furthermore, every person is safer in a society that has few or no guns than in a society that is well-armed. This has been proved by the Australian example and by western Europe.

Finally, you still haven't addressed all the other arms that individuals are not allowed to possess like land mines, grenades, flame throwers, etc., all of which can be used for home defense.
50   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 15, 2:50pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
Dan has a lot of personal experience in not being sexy,


Your wife begs to differ.
51   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 15, 2:51pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

bob2356 says

Jesus christ dan. Grow the fuck up.


Your entitled to your opinion, but you have done nothing to help the situation and you fling insults as often as I do, so you are a hypocrite. You clearly hate me, yet you do not follow your own advice and ignore me. Lead by example.
52   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Oct 15, 2:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

joshuatrio says


Quote of the year. You summed up Dan perfectly in this one sentence.


In other words, you cannot make an intelligible counter-argument to the original post and must resort to ad hom attacks instead.
53   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.


Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Am I for it? Not really important. Why do I hold that position? Because I'm not a Supreme Court judge
Do I think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? I think it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So it depends on your definition of arms. As you referred to them as "nuclear arms", it appears you think they qualify as arms. So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?

Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.
54   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 15, 7:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?


The most deadly weapon is a strong set of beliefs backed by a will to pay the ultimate price for them.

There were many unfair advantages against the newly formed Americans the first time, and we won. We had many advantages in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and frankly the US has been on the losing side of those engagements, to a good degree. Architecture of aggression will only go as far as your aggression and will can compel you to go.
55   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 7:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Exactly, the definition of arms.

When the 2nd was written, the Militia had the same "arms" as the government. Does the Militia have access to the same "arms" the government has now?

Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?


So you are in favor of private citizens having the right to own nuclear arms too--just like peopleunited then, right?
56   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 15, 9:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says
PeopleUnited says
Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual.


Dan8267 says
Pot has recreational purposes. That does not make it a right.




PeopleUnited says
Ok, and your point is?



Dan8267 says
As for self-defense, guns are worthless against the government, and fighting the government was the SOLE purpose of the Second Amendment. You need nukes to fight a nuclear power. So your entire analysis is wrong.



PeopleUnited says
You are saying that the whole point of the second amendment was that people have the right to fight the government? You are crazy and dangerous. You should be on some kind of watch list. You are advocating treason.



Dan8267 says
Furthermore, every person is safer in a society that has few or no guns than in a society that is well-armed. This has been proved by the Australian example and by western Europe.



PeopleUnited says
No, these "examples" are irrelevant to your argument that the purpose of the second amendment was to give citizens the weapons to wage war on the government. You said so yourself. And now you want to argue a different point. You don't even have a coherent discussion.



Dan8267 says
Finally, you still haven't addressed all the other arms that individuals are not allowed to possess like land mines, grenades, flame throwers, etc., all of which can be used for home defense.


PeopleUnited says
Some of the above could possibly be used safely to defend oneself without endangering the innocent but land mines are not on that list.
57   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 15, 9:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PeopleUnited says
You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.


Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Am I for it? Not really important.



So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.

Pretty lame.
58   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 16, 3:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.

Pretty lame.


I'm not unwilling to answer it--I just don't want this to turn into a discussion about me. I don't really care if you're for or against the 2nd Amendment, I only want to point out hypocrisy in most peoples' views.

Assuming that most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to nuclear arms or drones carrying bunker busting bombs, then they've already decided that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to ALL arms. It's just a questions of which ones are regulated. And once we realize that, it's a much easier discussion to have.
59   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 16, 5:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

So now libbies want to take away the "undecided" position.
Libbies, always taking, never giving...

joeyjojojunior says
Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?
60   BlueSardine   ignore (2)   2017 Oct 16, 5:57am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Agreed.
joeyjojojunior says
So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?

Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.

« First    « Previous     Comments 21 - 60 of 60     Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions