Slashdot Mirror

We need gun laws that raise the bar, just like locks on doors do.

On this, we agree. I think, at least. The bar on criminals getting guns does need to be raised. Care to propose a way to do that? Because none of the current laws, and no law that has been proposed to date, can prevent a dark alley, out of some guy's trunk, gun sale. Those are already extremely illegal and, guess what: the criminals don't give a shit.

Your wrong about mass shootings.

Thanks for that article, definitely an interesting piece. Did you read the linked study? It's a bit hard to find (the link tin the article has been broken since 2014) and paywalled when you do find it, but here's a direct, non-paywalled link. It really does seem to agree with me re: gun control laws. If you haven't read it, you probably should. Also, regarding the "debunking" of the "myth" that right to carry laws deter mass shootings, note that they cite two studies: one that finds that they, in fact, do and one that finds no effect. That, of course, means that -- at worst -- the right to carry doesn't increase incidence of mass shootings and -- at best -- might, as I've said, have a positive effect. And, remember, you entered this study into the debate by referencing an article solely based on it.

Criminals already aren't allowed to buy guns legally; they buy stolen guns (illegal) or illegally imported guns (also illegal) instead of buying from an FFL dealer, so piling more laws onto FFL purchases won't help. In sane states, private party transfers must be done through an FFL dealer, as well, so that's not a legal loophole; that's certainly how it works in my state. The problem with background checks is that anyone who doesn't pass it is gonna go to a black market seller anyway and anyone who is buying a gun to commit a crime or commit suicide, but doesn't currently have a record or any history of mental illness, will pass that background check with no issues whatsoever. In other words, it doesn't catch soon-to-be first offenders and the people it does catch have other ways to get guns if they really want them. It also doesn't help that most states don't properly catalog the incidents that would trigger a NICS failure, so even many people who should be denied aren't.

For reference, I live in California, one of the most (if not the most) restrictive states when it comes to guns. Here's an interesting statistic for you: counties with a "shall issue" policy on concealed carry permits have lower gun violence rates than counties with a "may issue" policy in this state. I don't know how true that holds nationally, but it does seem to support my claim that criminals will go where they know their victims are less likely to be able to shoot back.

I'd much rather have someone walking around with a rifle on their back vs a handgun tucked in their pocket.

So would the criminal with the handgun tucked in his pocket. Or knife, for that matter. They'll know they can safely mug you once the guy with the rifle walks away. Of course, they could probably do it right in front of him, too, since most people who carry aren't going to risk liability to protect some stranger; which, of course, is why most people carry a gun more suited for self defense at a shorter range.

If YOU want to continue the discussion, I'd like you to admit that, according to every study that has ever been done on the subject, voter fraud is a statistically insignificant issue.

Yea, it's insignificant in virtually all instances. I can't go quite as far as your complete dismissal of it. In very tight elections, it can make a difference. The Daly's Chicago vote in the Nixon/Kennedy election comes to mind - that one is still debated to this day. As well as the election of Al Franken, which was such a crazy comedy of errors, lost ballots found days later in election officer's trunks, etc. there is no way to know what happened. I don't think there was a significant fraud in that one, either, but just a small amount could have easily changed the result.

The point is there is really no effort going on, especially in places like Los Angeles County, to ensure non-citizens are not voting. Lots of people seem to be perfectly fine with non-citizens actually casting votes in our elections, while beating war drums because Russia may have been behind the revelations of truth in the workings of the DNC. The Obama administration even stopped efforts to identify non-citizens on voter rolls and remove them, in several states.

I came across some interesting clips recently. First up, this was on CNN. I really wanted to find out what this "highly edited" clip was. I couldn't find anything on Fox Business, but I'm pretty sure the clip referred to was this interview that actually aired on CNN as well. I can certainly see how some people could have interpreted this as Obama saying that it was okay for undocumented immigrants to vote. This is the clip. It's not edited at all.

Finally is an interview with former FEC Election Commissioner Hans Von Spakovsky. The study he refers to is from Harvard, but its interpretation has been widely criticized. Some of those criticisms are valid, but claiming that non-citizens self-reporting that they voted in a recent election is higher than those that actually did fails the sniff test. Interested in your thoughts on this.

If YOU want to continue the discussion, I'd like you to admit that, according to every study that has ever been done on the subject, voter fraud is a statistically insignificant issue.

Yea, it's insignificant in virtually all instances. I can't go quite as far as your complete dismissal of it. In very tight elections, it can make a difference. The Daly's Chicago vote in the Nixon/Kennedy election comes to mind - that one is still debated to this day. As well as the election of Al Franken, which was such a crazy comedy of errors, lost ballots found days later in election officer's trunks, etc. there is no way to know what happened. I don't think there was a significant fraud in that one, either, but just a small amount could have easily changed the result.

The point is there is really no effort going on, especially in places like Los Angeles County, to ensure non-citizens are not voting. Lots of people seem to be perfectly fine with non-citizens actually casting votes in our elections, while beating war drums because Russia may have been behind the revelations of truth in the workings of the DNC. The Obama administration even stopped efforts to identify non-citizens on voter rolls and remove them, in several states.

I came across some interesting clips recently. First up, this was on CNN. I really wanted to find out what this "highly edited" clip was. I couldn't find anything on Fox Business, but I'm pretty sure the clip referred to was this interview that actually aired on CNN as well. I can certainly see how some people could have interpreted this as Obama saying that it was okay for undocumented immigrants to vote. This is the clip. It's not edited at all.

Finally is an interview with former FEC Election Commissioner Hans Von Spakovsky. The study he refers to is from Harvard, but its interpretation has been widely criticized. Some of those criticisms are valid, but claiming that non-citizens self-reporting that they voted in a recent election is higher than those that actually did fails the sniff test. Interested in your thoughts on this.

Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.

You're exactly right. But, I'm frankly tired of the proxy wars and the droning of brown people in sand for the control of oil and gas and, of course, pipelines. Not to mention the regime-change agenda over there that started during the W. Bush administration.

So I don't want Hillary in charge to further that agenda and escalate things over there. The only good it does for anybody is to line the pockets of multinational corporations (and, of course, the politicians that help them gain access to resource they can exploit). And those guys don't give two figs about America or Americans. They don't even bother paying US taxes on all those gains - most of it they stick in some foreign tax haven somewhere so they can get to it when they're ready to retire to one of their tropical villas where all the local officials are already owned (by them).

So, yea, if you're all concerned about continuing to squeeze the middle class of their ever-dwindling wages so you can spend it fighting foreign wars to prop up the globalists and the bankers, by all means support Hillary as your candidate. For me, I'd rather leave them to their own devices. We'd be better off working in the weapons factories and selling bombs and ammo to the ones left there fighting over some desert. We've got enough of our own gas and oil to do just fine until they're done bombing each other to oblivion and have established the caliphate in the EU.

They want to set a precedent for this case (because "Ter'ism"!), then they can use the same technique to force Apple to crack all those other phones from drug dealers, child molesters, polluters, litterers, and jay-walkers.

They spell out what they expect pretty specifically right in the order.

Oh, and by the way, they have recently up'd the ante on the whole thing by claiming that they don't want to have to do it, but if Apple doesn't want to cooperate, next they'll just demand the source code for iOS so they can modify it themselves.

Start having big trekkie parties like these guys. Maybe you'll get lucky.

Soylent Green?

"Arab Spring".

"Irish Spring"

Soylent Green?

"Arab Spring".

From the "BPP Project":

we do not cover 100% of CPI goods and services. The price of services, in particular, are not easy to find online and therefore are not included in our statistics.

Oh, my, and look how well they track the government's CPI. Pretty close. And they're "independent", so it must be true! Hmmm... no details on what they track though, and apparently it only includes stuff they find online. Say, do you know how money gets into the system? Do you get where inflation shows up first, how it flows down?

This pair of charts isn't from some conspiracy, it just shows the difference in today's CPI, and the same statistic the way the CPI was calculated in the 1980's. Interesting, if inflation were calculated consistently, it would be much higher. Actual inflation using non-cooked numbers is 10.5% in the year from Jan. 2011 to Jan 2012 People that work for a living and shop for their own groceries understand this. Why can't you?

We can't see inflation in agricultural commodities or base metals, both of which are cheaper than they were a year ago.

We can, you're just not looking. This looks like some pretty hefty inflation to me. You can also go here to draw your own chart. Pick anything traded on the global market. Prices on wheat, grain, and many other commodities are rising right in step with gold and crude oil

You're wikipedia posting is really clever. What you seem to have missed is who is behind most of it, and why it's happening.. Do you really think that some band of Libyan "rebels" were all about human rights when their first actions as they took over government was to create an oil company and a central bank?.

Might I suggest that perhaps your limited understanding of the global economy and the Federal Reserve fractional lending system could have a few blindspots?

You can suggest it, but you would be wrong. I think you're just buying the PR from the mainstream and avoiding doing any critical thinking for yourself. Understandable - that's how they train people in the public schools these days.

Seems a bit more likely that your "invisible inflation" theory.

I never said anything about "invisible inflation" - it's not invisible at all. It's just that you're blind or refuse to see.

You want NPR to be less compromised? Contribute more. The Public radio stations make it easy to donate whatever you want.

That would be pretty self-defeating, since they'll take my money and simply use it to create programming full of lies and corporate propaganda. I don't have enough money to buy air time like the corporations they are catering to. And I certainly don't have the kind of money to buy advertising presented as news stories like this.

civil libertarian enthusiast

You obviously know nothing about his positions.

And given his newsletter's comments on race

Really? That tired old disinformation? You're perpetuating a lie - I have to think you are doing it on purpose. I'll just let Ron Paul respond to that bullcrap the same way he did to Chris Matthews.

I Agree...Free Talk Live is Great! Listening to it is the most important part of my day. I highly recommend it -- it may change your life.

I also enjoy:

• Distorted View
• The Dawn and Drew Show
• TWiT -- This Week In Tech
• The Daily Source Code
• Pacific Coast Hellway
• The Zedcast

I wrote my own personal aggregator...it's similar to bashpodder...it is just a PHP script to download them every day.

Adam Curry (yes that guy from MTV) is the father of Podcasting and as such he gave the keynote speech at Gnomedex this past weekend. The full keynote is also one of his many podcasts.

(Ok, if you don't know a podcast is basically an audio file. The term originates from the idea of Broadcasting and the iPod. The idea is take your content with you and listen when you want. The CBC has some of their radio content available as a podcast. So the concept is catching on!)

This keynote is well worth the listen. It is motivational, and it is focused. Users demand content and they don't care how the delivery method works (ATOM, RSS, etc). For the rest of the speech, go over to Adam's site for a link to the audio file. Listen, enjoy, and think about what he has to say.

Podcasting is an audio distribution system based on RSS with enclosures. This allows anyone to setup their own audio show and easily distribute it to subscribers. One of the pioneers of Podcasting is Adam Curry http://www.curry.com/

shameless plug for my podcast: theWatt Weekly - energy news and discussion in mp3 format

(on Ford Prefect being a black American)

As we all know, no single black person lives in England.

Indeed, and futhermore there are no Americans in Guildford.

Apparently Pim Fortuyn's politics were widely mischaracterized in most media after his asassination. You may find there was a lot more to like about the guy than most people outside of the Netherlends was led to believe.

Meanwhile, this whole WMD was so clearly a pretense to start with that I can't help but laugh as the administration squirms. But as a friend of mine said recently, we will find WMD in Iraq - even if we have to fly them in ourselves. Makes you wonder why they even bother to let it drag out for so long. Maybe there is still a modicum of honor in the current administration (still haven't finished reprogramming Powell, perhaps) that they can't quite get the gumption up to start planting the evidence. Either that or things are still too disorganized over there to pull it off without getting caught in the act.

'A "blog" is an online diary. Just because it's a "journal", doesn't make it journalism, by the practical definition.'