Slashdot Mirror
12-Year-Old Sikh Boy Arrested In Texas After Bringing a Power Bag To School (salon.com)
AaronW writes: A 12-year-old Sikh boy in Dallas, Texas was accused by another student of bringing a bomb to school. Apparently he had a powerbag; a backpack with a built-in phone charger. Rather than send him to the principal's office or ask for an explanation, the teacher instead called the police, who promptly arrested him and threw him into a juvenile detention center for three days. The school promptly suspended Armaan, and the police released him after three days but required that he wear an ankle bracelet.
Verifiable details are scant, for this case — probably because the whole thing seems to revolve around some 12-year-old kids talking to each other. Armaan's story is that another student said his bag looked like it had a bomb in it, and that he would report it. Believing it to be a joke, Armaan laughed. The police say he "admitted" to joking about a bomb, and they insist their actions were justified. A school district spokesman says the family was notified, but the parents say they had to dial 911 to find somebody who could tell them where their son was being held.
That's pretty sick.
Take them for all the money that can be had. False arrest charges would be nice too.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards :(...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The basic problem is that mundanes see any home-made electronic device as a bomb. This is the terminal point of anti-intellectual bias in society, if you can make something, it's assumed that you're out to make something harmful.
Bruce Perens.
This is a horrible miscarriage of justice. If we're to accept this story on face value, the failures and stupidity at every level of government is distressingly palpable. How absurd is it that no one at the school or police department performed even the most minimal investigation much less inform the parents. Isn't it outright illegal for police to talk to children to interrogate them without the parents having the option to be present?
Soon we'll hear accusations that the student's father's sister's cousin's former room mate was also unverifiably be accused of making bomb threats.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I sure hope you mean figuratively. Otherwise, clean-up on aisle 7....
Dear America,
Please get a grip on yourselves.
Signed,
The Rest of the World.
Sadly when dealing with law enforcement you can't make jokes. It is a related issue to the whole "zero tolerance" mindset that has besieged school policy. Being reasonable is no longer a reasonable expectation.
A normal human can be expected to crack a joke when confronted with a bizarre situation, such as a teacher asking a seemingly insane question as to whether your clock, or backpack is a bomb. Using humor to diffuse a tense situation is one of those social skills we pick up as a way to survive being crammed into overcrowded schools with a bunch of numb skull peers. But normal human behavior will get you tazed, pepper sprayed, arrested, or even shot these days.
Similarly we have a lot of cases of folks freezing up while being barked at by armed cops and being shot for not dropping the "weapon" (real or imagined). Normal human behavior for sure, but you die as a result. Trying shield yourself from a rain of blows? To a cop that can be seen as "resisting arrest" and justify a further rain of blows, a choke hold, or a tazing. Using body language like gesticulating with your arms and hands as you try to talk things out with some meat head pointing a gun at you? To a cop that is "acting erratically", maybe even causing him to "fear for his life". Not answering questions per your Miranda rights? "Acting un-cooperatively."
Someone should start a non profit... to manufacture and distribute stickers:
This item is not
a f*cking bomb
Seriously.
Huh?
For me, the most disturbing thing is that there are (many apparently) teachers out there who call the cops on young children. Racism has always been there, but as far as I remember for anything less than knife-wielding 17 year old gangster students, it would be a school affair, dealt between teachers, parents, principle. Nowadays, they just call the cops on kids...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
This was in Arlington, not Dallas. This is like confusing Islip with New York City, Oakland with San Francisco, Yokohoama with Tokyo, or Luton with London.
Mass hysteria permeates the entire lower and middle classes in America. I'd say that's causing the nanny state.
It's looking more and more like a certain Sunni extremist group has already obtained one of their primary objectives: polarizing the United States against anyone of middle-eastern origin. I know this is at this point a 'Planet Texas' problem, but the problem is growing everywhere: people are already primed to be afraid of anyone who looks like they might conceivably be Muslim, and you give them any half-assed reason for a knee-jerk reaction, and you have what happened in this news story. One has to wonder how long it'll be, before someone (a cop, most likely) 'shoots and asks questions later', and some kid or other innocent dies just because they looked (or were in fact) Muslim -- and they weren't doing a damned thing wrong or even planned to do a damned thing wrong. After that, it'll likely be an avalanche. Something has to be done to stop this chain of events, now, before it gets to that point, but I'll be damned if I know what we need to do. Other than kick Trump out of the whole campaign process, and furthermore duct-tape him to a chair and stuff a sock in his mouth; that guy is doing at least as much damage to the whole situation as so-called Islamic State assholes are.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
At various times, I brought to school a phone-tapping device, a gas mask, and various incomprehensible-to-the-layman scientific devices.
Obviously I would not have fit in with kids like you. But that is no sin.
Bruce Perens.
I work in a high school. They are using their phone all day, every day, and for more than just selfies. A lot of work gets done through phones, to the point that we provide charge ports in my classes to make sure.
I'm glad you only had paper and pencils when you went to school, but school if not the same as when you went. Carrying around a power supply is not weird, its normal even in my small rural town.
ageist, sexist, and Islamophobia in 5 words. well played, sir.
Have a habit of overreacting to kids and not having any clue how a bomb would actually be detonated. Sad thing is they'll probably miss the real thing if it's ever in front of them. Glad I don't live there anymore.
This is rather curious, coming from a guy who is supposed to champion freedom.
I am an honest citizen. Can you give me any logical reason why I should not be able to protect my family?
Just because you fear wolves, pulling the teeth out of the family golden retriever will NOT make you safer.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Yeah!
Sounds like the kid got swatted by a class bully.
The Arlington PoPo claim the bust was ok because the 12 year old was not able to explain to the so-called adults what happened.
He may have had trouble because their problem was so silly he had a hard time understanding what to say.
Fortunately, no ambulances were involved.
It seems at this point, the Arlington school district is increasing their liability by continuing the charade.
They really need to dump the ankle bracelet and let him back to school, or at least get a full time tutor to make sure he misses no time.
The swatter might need a consequence as well.
Hope the kid is smart enough to need a good college, looks like his lawyers will get Arlington to give him a great nest egg to pay for it.
In a perfect world, the ignorance of the folks who are paid to know better should cause them a personal consequence.
Until this happens, we will see more of these scholarship programs.
... especially the cowards.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Can you tell by looking?
The problem is, all the pro-gun advocates ever only seem to see in pure black and white, absolute terms rather than paying any mind to actual reality. Very few people have actually suggested that law abiding people get to keep their guns. What's been proposed and talked about are policies that would help prevent whackjobs from getting guns and killing innocent people with them.
That's not most gun owners, it's only a very tiny fraction of them. Almost nobody wants to stop law abiding, responsible people from being able to defend themselves-- that argument is ridiculous.
What's fascinating is that the argument that the people clamoring for sensible gun laws want to do that is only being made-- not by the people lobbying for sensible updates to gun laws based on reality and data-- but instead it's always presented on a broad scale only by the pro-gun lobby as if that were the argument being made by their opposition-- but not actually being made by their opposition. That is patently absurd. How can pro-gun people expect to be taken seriously when they can't even logic? No, instead, the arguments always have to be made by irrational, insane people rather than all the reasonable, responsible gun owners. It makes it hard to have any sympathy for their cause.
Keith D.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
My dad was a reserve and was called up for both World War II and Korea. He killed people in Germany, and had a Purple Heart and a panel of decorations. He brought home a Luger which he'd taken off of some German. He destroyed the firing pin, because he knew that his family would be safer without an operating weapon in the home.
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't. Everybody has a crazy day in their life. Everyone.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
Bruce Perens.
Grr... need to proof-read better. *** Very few people have actually suggested that law abiding people not get to keep their guns. ***
Keith D.
Is it A:
* Get America to panic and voluntarily give up their civil rights under the guise of "zero tolerance," at which point the bad guys have already won.
or B:
* Get America to accept that kids will bring electronics to school and when questioned about them, make bomb-jokes
* Sneak a terrorist into the country with kids and send the kids to school with bombs that look like science experiments or backpacks-with-batteries
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A friend in my highschool about 10 years ago was put under house arrest for 6 months because he brought a plastic laser pointer that looked like a really tiny revolver. Someone freaked and instead of getting detention or something, he was arrested for a toy.
Whether it be xenophobes, islamaphobes, or hoplophobes, you have nuts of all type out there willing to persecute people they think they are afraid of.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
http://sikhism.about.com/od/To...
they are a respectable warrior culture with fairly high integrity.
they are not engaged in a jihad against Western culture.
ya, Texas. Enough said. The world according to GOP.
Dangit folks, learn your turban: Sikh's tie their turban's so that there's an inverted V at the forehead. and if one had to belong to a religious sect then being Sikh is in the top three (they're much nicer to females than your average Baptist). I'd sooner share a lunch with a Sikh than nearly any 'follower of Abraham' (for the curry, if naught else)
The gun is only dangerous when it's in your hand. So, we could actually do without gun laws if we eliminated people instead :-)
Bruce Perens.
Nice assertion, give a cite.
For what did they send the 12 year old to jail?
What country sends 12 year olds to jail for anything anyways?
Where the crazy lives!
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
I don't give a flying crap what religion he is. Frankly I think it does a disservice to story by featuring it.
Should we throw "Christian", or "Athiest" into the headline whenever some poor kid get gunned down by a cop? It adds no value unless relevant. So unless someone's religion was important to the events, I would rather it be left out of the headline and story.
It is proven that drownings happen a LOT more in houses that have swimming pools, so we need to ban them for the public good.
Sorry, but what I MIGHT do is not a good reason to restrict my rights.
If you do the math, the average male "member" is about 30 time more likely to commit sexual assault than the average gun is to commit murder. Do we need to castrate everybody based on what a tiny minority might do?
You wish to punish the 99.004% of honest gun owners based on the action of the 0.006%? Yes, those are real numbers.
Homicide is down by 50% since 1992. We are now twice as safe! We should do something to reverse this horrible trend!
Given that the gun genie is already out of the bottle, how do you propose to get the criminals to give up their guns? You think that only disarming the honest people makes you safer?
Australia got STRICT gun laws in 1996.
Australia 1995: guns were used in 18.38% of homicides.
Australia 2012: guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
Yea, destroying THOUSANDS of guns resulted in less than 1% change. Plus, things are still not all rosy in Australia: http://thenewdaily.com.au/news...
If you choose to give up your freedoms, go ahead. But don't tell me how to live. That is all that I ask. I won't tell you what to do, and you don't tell me what to do.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
If they only want to keep nut jobs from getting guns, why did the democrats submit an assault weapon ban the other day? Give them an inch and they take a mile; at least that's what I see as a gun owner.
People tend to have a disconnected view of history. We think of things that happened before our lifetimes as ancient events performed in very different times by very different people, depicted in black and white images from our textbooks. Those crazy primates voted for Hitler. And they participated in the Salem witch trials. And they bought slaves. And they committed genocides.
But thankfully they're not the same people as us. We learned from their mistakes, right? We're enlightened. We have smartphones and shiny teeth and refined morals. We'd never do that kind of thing. Would we?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
The never detain kids who look like Howdy Doody for "odd devices", it's always dark skin or turbans.
Table-ized A.I.
As an Australian, I'm sick of you American micro dick gun nuts lying about the gun stats in my country. Fuck you.
Nobody I know own at feels the need to own a gun for protection. I've never once seen a gun carried in public by a civilian.
When our gun ban came in the mass shootings stopped completely, and we have had none since.
The US is a violence crazed society, as evidenced by your constant wars for economic advantage.
That's why you are a terrosts target, your own actions. You reap what you sow.
As others have already noted, what you believed about guns and Australia is not true.
I actually have really strict laws that I must follow regarding my swimming pool, at risk of criminal or civil liability, and I exceeded them when my kid was young. There were two physical barriers between him and the pool.
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
Bruce Perens.
Why would the Jesus freaks tout Ayn Rand, a stout atheist. Maybe you shouldn't stereotype.
Um, yeah. And the result is, nobody can add 2 plus 2 in their head any more to make change, or spell, or know anything about city names in other states, or have any comprehension of literary allusions. The fair to middling kid from class in my day was 50 times as well equipped intellectually and as a citizen than the best kids in the wretched zoos that pass for classes today. We are training PETS for our masters.
I remember learning long division and later even square roots with pencil and paper, how to ESTIMATE calculations in my head, the use of logarithm tables, and other skills that are just complete mysteries to today's kids. They just think people who can do these things are practicing magic.
... of lawyers in the resulting stampede, looking to represent him in court.
Nothing of value was lost.
On the other hand, to rational people there will never be any "versions" of the event. People saw "waaaars and shit" in a kid's bag and freaked out like half-wits. When it escalated to the arrival of heavy law enforcement artillery, instead of glancing at the bag and boxing the ears of the stupid alarmist rumor mongers, they went into full derangement mode in persecuting the poor kid.
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homocide in the Home. They say 2.7 to 1. That's just the first I found with a Google search. And the fatal school shootings list is really obscenely frequent now.
Pardon me for getting exasperated, but I shouldn't really have to tell you to read the news! This stuff is right in front of you.
Bruce Perens.
Get real. Nobody made a "fake bomb" and "called it a clock". Sheesh. You missed the entire lesson of that exercise in insanity.
When I went to school my backpack was full of books and papers and stuff.
There are reasons for that. Depending on when you went to school, cellphones either didn't exist, were too big to carry around, or had batteries lasting a week on a charge.
Batteries in smart phones often don't last that long, and he is nearing his teen years, a time when a dead cellphone is incompatible with life.
Expecting such f***ing ignorant rednecks in Texas is like expecting fish in the sea, but being able to be so ignorant and also run schools and police? wow.
Can you give me any logical reason why I should not be able to protect my family?
"Protect my family" does not directly equate with "own a gun," any more than it does with "litter my yard with bear traps" or "drive the kids to school in a tank."
There are many things in life which can be summarised in three words that one might reasonably claim one should be able to do, but that doesn't mean that any and all methods of doing so should therefore automatically be allowed.
I should be able to feed my family. Doesn't mean I can go and cook my neighbour's dog with impugnity.
(n,lswjtcaaiaago)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
If you respect public safety and the law, your guns are all locked away in a case and would be useless if you were ever attacked. If you do not lock them away and keep them accessible you do not respect public safety and can't be trusted with a weapon. Next!
If someone accuses for no reason accuses my ordinary backpack of being a bomb (sold with a convenient bomb-holder!) I'm going to say , "that's right, it's a bomb" and then think "idiot".
Now I go to jail? And I am, what, 12?
At what point does this obsession with controlling people's speech for fear of bombings and mass murder start to shade into a violation of the 1st Amendment right to be fucking sarcastic, ironic and otherwise you know, conscious?
You know how many people died due to acts of terrorism and mass shootings compared to falling in the fucking tub ? Know what your odds are wrt getting shot / bombed by strangers anywhere in America?
I know both sides are rolling around in th mud of current events in order to achieve their desired legislative ends - the left gun control and the right cessation of Muslim immigration but to both sides I say, in the spirit of Madison and Jefferson- fucking blow me.
Fucking wake the fuck up and see how you're both being played for goddamn fools by the people who want to have more control over your speech , your privacy, YOUR KIDS and all your "inalienable" rights.
Homocide
Bruce Perens confirmed to wish death on gays through Freudian slip.
Um, wouldn't "them" in this case be the local government which means the local community, i.e. people who are paying taxes in that town? Best case the police department is insured and the insurance company would pay any settlement and then just jack up insurance rates on the rest of their customers to make the money back. Yeah, good idea.
I really hate this type of reply.
It attempts to sway the reader into thinking that responsibility and/or justice will be expensive. It tries to dissuade the reader from commonsense actions which would tend to prevent future transgressions.
Don't fine the company - they'll only jack up their prices and it's the customers who would pay. Don't sue the government, they'll just jack up the taxes and the people will pay.
This might cost the taxpayers in one or two instances, but it would have a chilling effect on other abuses in other districts. It's an overall gain for the taxpayers everywhere.
We don't have to sit outraged and powerless while these sorts of abuses happen. One or two groups of taxpayers can take the hit and we will all benefit. They will benefit later when we take the hit for other types of abuse.
Let's work together to stop this nonsense.
Including, saying that commonsense punishments are futile.
I know we fought to wrest Texas from Mexico back in the 1840s, but I feel this was a mistake. We should give Texas back to Mexico.
They can have California back too.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
And issue of Fear based Stupidity continues unabated across the US.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
I'm sure this would have happened in the vicinity of Austin as well. I've lived there, and there's massive discrimination vs anyone with brown skin.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
Nice way to include suicides (which are two-thirds of all "gun deaths") in your assertion. The people who trot out that canard consider someone who kills himself to have used the gun "on his family." By that measure, owning a car is crazy because it hugely increases the odds of you and/or your family dying in it.
Your anecdote about your dad suggests that he was a lucid, brave person. Was he really worried that he was going to decide to kill his family? Was he actually worried that only a WWII pistol would have the power to make him want to kill his family, but long, deadly knives in the kitchen wouldn't have that magical power over his decision making process? If, as you say, everyone has a crazy day, then why aren't the dozens of things lying around the house that could be used to quickly kill someone on your list of things that should be disabled?
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
So, you would have even MORE freedom if knives were taken away, right? And pipes and baseball bats? More people are killed every year with club-like objects (bats, pipes, etc) than with all rifles and shotguns combined (and that INCLUDES suicides using those guns). So surely you'd be in favor of even more extra-big helpings of freedom by taking away those objects, right? Right? No?
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't.
I think the unreliable brain, here, is in your skull. You're completely mangling any sort of proportion in your observations, citing anecdotes that mysteriously leave out options like owning a simple gun safe (for your dad's war relic ... or explaining why a safe wouldn't stop him from using the gun to kill his family, but a kitchen drawer would stop him from using a knife to murder, as happens thousands of times every year).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm sorry, I didn't know there was anyone not of genus homo in the audience. I'll be more inclusive next time :-)
Bruce Perens.
The Texans don't care if he's Muslim, or what, he has brown skin, and so is going to be discriminated against. Worse yet, his name is obviously not Latino/Hispanic or European, so he's screwed before anyone even talks to him.
So the power bags that the bomb accusation was directed against isn't tech? And people that commonly carry such things, you know, like us techies, don't ever have to worry about such false accusations and over reactions by authority?
/. never said it's only tech, it's just heavily biased for that. You might want to check out their motto/logo (or whatever you call it) again.
Gee, it's good to know that what happened to that kid has never happened, even if you aren't as innocent looking as a 12 year old school kid.
By the way,
When you went to school, did kids even have cell phones?
And since when does 'need' have anything to do with the standard kids 'want' for all kinds of things, including fashionable clothes, and cool devices, especially when dealing with the social structures of student life in school?
Almost nobody wants to stop law abiding, responsible people from being able to defend themselves-- that argument is ridiculous.
Wait what? That goes completely against the sorts of gun legislation that gets passed in California.
The situation you describe is just as much the fault of the gun banners as the crazies. I'm about as right-wing as you can get about this kind of stuff, but in a perfect world I'd be all for things like background checks (especially if they check mental health), mandatory training (hell, teach gun safety in schools alongside sex-ed ("kids are gonna do it anyway, so might as well teach them to be safe about it" amirite?) ), etc. The problem is that the gun banning crowd always hijacks reasonable regulation and uses it as a way to harass law abiding gun owners.
A great example is the california handgun safety certificate. It started as a test you had to pass in order to own a handgun (originally it might have been any firearm, I wasn't a gun owner at the time it went through). It involved a multiple choice test with some decently challenging questions, and a portion in which you demonstrate safe handling to an instructor. There was a small fee (ostensibly to cover administration costs), and it was good for a lifetime once you got it. The legislation passed, and within a few years it was changed to something you have to renew every 5 years (paying the fee each time), and they dropped the safe handling demonstration. Now it's basically a backdoor tax on owning handguns with no real benefit.
Another fun one is the 10 day waiting period. Initially it was there so that there was time for all of the background check stuff to come through. Now that it's computerized, the check is basically instant but the anti-gun crowd insist on keeping the 10 day waiting period. That combined with the FFL requirements means that when I bought a shotgun from my friend for $100, I paid $150 (FFL fee + tax), had to wait 10 days, and make two trips to a pretty out of the way gun shop. That one really annoys me because had we decided not to be honest, we could have saved time, money, and hassle by making the swap in his garage for cash and no one would have ever known.
It turns out that the assertion about blunt objects being used in more murders than guns isn't true.
And regarding suicide vs homicide, the paper I cited above gave a 2.7 times greater risk for homicide, not suicide, as a result of gun ownership in the home.
I think you have to look at the statistics cited by the gun proponents with a more jaundiced eye. All the ones I've seen in this discussion seem to have been discredited.
Bruce Perens.
If you ignored the Faux narrative and actually read the letters the lawyer sent, they demanded an apology, and if they didn't get it, they were not dismissing any other possible legal avenues, including suing them.
Oddly enough, the lawyers letters were very readable with no discernible obfuscated legalese or linguistic backflips. It's almost like he knew he had to send it to idiots in the first place.
Every mobile phone is potential bomb trigger. Did they round up all the kids with phones?
All these people keep freaking out over are things that they suspect are triggers which just indicates how stupid the populace in general is.
A bomb is 3 things
- trigger
- detonator
- explosive
Just about anything from a string to a super computer can be trigger setting the condition for activating the detonator.
Getting in a panic over something that might be trigger is ludicrous and does not help.
Give them an inch and they take a mile; at least that's what I see as a gun owner.
Yep. The biggest obstacle to sensible gun laws is the part where the anti-gun crowd hijacks the regulations to harass gun owners. I remember a conversation with one who said if he could ban guns based purely on color (e.g. any gun painted purple isn't allowed) he would do so knowing full well it's nonsensical. His logic was that the more kinds of guns banned (and the more hoops to jump through in owning them), even if that particular regulation only bans one specific individual gun, the better.
There's an assumption in my argument that the people involved in the discussion are smart enough to predict that bad things are likely to happen based on past history. If you are not smart enough to do this, try to get put away without hurting anyone first.
Bruce Perens.
Historically, governments have a piss poor track record of actually limiting the scope of such measures.
For example, the income tax in the US was originally advertised as to only apply to something like the top 1% of 1% - and look where it is now (tens of thousands of pages that impact everyone, billion dollar industries around complying with it).
Once you let the government control X or do Y in certain cases, they'll try to expand the allowable cases as far as possible as quickly as possible.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
You'll be speaking Mandarin soon enough. I'll keep my guns.
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
Wow the Bruce Perens I watch on TAPR videos, etc? What a fucking dick. Come and take it!
Texas is on track to take the Idiocracy title away from Florida.
Seems like Syrians aren't the only foreigners Texas doesn't want to have around.
We are the 198 proof..
You and ESR, go settle this in a cage match. I claim the popcorn vending rights!
Whoever wins, it's not like the government could seize all the guns if it wanted to - gun owners outnumber the US army something like 50-to-1. Some of us learned in school what happened when the governor of Massachusetts send in troops to confiscate a hoard of guns from some militia crazies - it did not end well for the government.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Kidnapping added to the sordid history of child-molestations.
But, at least, it did not happen in a church.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
what is becoming of America. The regular almost daily parade of articles like this, and listening to the likes of Trump makes me imagine what 1930s Germany must have been like.
Profoundly glad as a Canadian that it does not seem to be that highly contagious.
The Sikhs geographically live at the interface of other religions in western India, having moderated their lives for hundreds of years to avoid getting murdered. Social researchers observe the above teacher and police reactions as like those of toddlers. When slightly stressed, they seek what comforts them in unrelated aspects of their lives: stuffed animals for toddlers, bigotry for too many Texans. Man up.
> As others have already noted, what you believed about guns and Australia is not true
Well, apparently, the Australian government disagrees with you. The facts he cited are there, clear as day.
> Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
A civil war will happen before you even have the chance.
Guns are like drugs. If you cannot keep it out of a prison, good luck keeping out of a country that has open borders.
You, sir, are a moron.
If you really want to protect your family, the best way is to check the wiring in the house, change the batteries in the smoke alarm and not own a gun.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't. Everybody has a crazy day in their life. Everyone.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
So you'd be fine with taking guns away from law enforcement?
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
At risk of sounding pithy, umm... You're gonna need a gun to do that. Many of us firearm owners aren't going to let you just take them. It's going to go really poorly for everyone involved. I hope you're aware of what you're advocating.
Me? I'm a patriot, I spent eight years in the military and even had the misfortune to see combat whilst I served. I'd hate to ever harm a human but, you know, I just might not move and take my firearms with me when I go should you try to take my firearms. I may decide to do my patriotic duty and accept that I may end up on the losing side. Some things are worth fighting and dying for.
One of those things is freedom. Freedom comes with risks. You can have secure or you can have free. Overall violence is trending downward as is firearm related violence. No, I'll take the risks and take freedom. I accept that it may result in my death or harm. I am aware of that risk and you don't get to take my freedom for your cowardice.
On a more personal matter, and unimportant, I've lost all respect for you today. I held you in high esteem and as a pinnacle for freedom, specifically with software but freedom as it is. I see now that this was ignorance on my part. It is both saddening and disappointing, all at the same time. It's actually almost painful to type this out and I may regret it but I'm inclined to say it. I've spent a while typing this and thinking about it... Yeah, I don't think you can earn that respect back. Your fear cowardice is not an excuse to take away my rights.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You're (deliberately, of course) confusing "guns" with what I actually said: rifles and shotguns.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
I call bullshit. The odds are ZERO that I will use any of the guns I own against anyone in my own family. ZERO.
My dad was a reserve and was called up for both World War II and Korea. ... because he knew that his family would be safer without an operating weapon in the home.
His fear that you would shoot someone is hardly an reason to enact more gun control laws.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
The founders of this country, and the legislators of the various states that ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, disagree with you. I trust their judgement more than yours.
There's an assumption in my argument that the people involved in the discussion are smart enough to predict that bad things are likely to happen based on past history.
And the assumption other people have is that the people involved in this discussion are smart enough to predict that adding yet another law will have the same results as all the previous "yet another laws" have had on solving the problem. And yet, here you are, pretending that you are the smart one and the people who disagree with you must be dumbasses for daring to question your qualifications based on ... your Dad's fear?
...try to get put away without hurting anyone first.
Fear mongering writ large. My dad never felt he had to destroy a gun because he was scared I'd shoot someone with it.
Bruce, arguments based on how smart you are and how dumb everyone that doesn't agree with you is aren't productive in any way. You should be smart enough to recognize that.
Does that statistic rely on the large number of inner city drug dealers who are shot while illegally dealing drugs?
Because I'm pretty sure it does, and that removing that group from the equation lowers her chances of being murdered quite a bit. Assuming she isn't an inner city drug dealer, of course.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Look at the seatbelt laws.
I remember when my state was considering making a law requiring seatbelt use. The politicians swore up and down that they would only make a low level traffic offence, and that no one would ever be pulled over for simply not wearing a seatbelt. How many years did it take for them to make it a primary offence that lets a police officer pull over someone for not utilizing a personal safety device?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The worst part for me is that he bases his gun-grab on how many violent criminals kill each other during illegal activity, then adds in the number of suicides by gun (and I thought the left supports a person's right to end their life on their own terms), and tries to claim that legal gun owners are just as likely to die by a gun, even their own gun, as those first two groups.
As Mark Twain's saying goes: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You do realize you just found an article by Kellermann, right? His findings have been widely discredited. See http://www.guncite.com/gun-con... . And note that "owns a gun and was killed at home" does *not* mean was killed with the gun from the home, and that "killed at home" is only a small portion of all homicides. He also failed to control for being a drug dealer or gang member, which are associated with both being killed at home and owning guns.
Maybe the solution is to NOT disarm the victims?
Armed victims aren't stopping shootings or deterring them. Also you have a poor sense of how targets are being sought.
Comedians/commentators mocked the notion of rushing and attacking a would-be shooter a month or so ago.
Another month or so earlier these same comedians/commentators were praising three unarmed Americans on a French train who rushed and attacked a terrorist armed with an AK-47.
These comedians/commentators have quite selective memories. Others too apparently.
Would you like to amend your claim that a "good guy" has not stopped a terrorist from killing people?
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Its also far higher than Switzerland, which also has a history of sport shooting and firearms being possessed by private citizens. Even private firearms that would be considered "assault weapons" in various states in the USA. And yet they don't have a serious problem.
What they do have are proper background checks, proper safety instruction and proper safe storage at home. Well, that and a good educational system and social safety net.
The problem is obviously not the mere possession of firearms by civilians. The actual failing is most likely in the USA' socioeconomic policies. Firearms related deaths are the "symptom", not the actual "disease".
Oh, and like the countries that you cite, Mexico has pretty severe restrictions on civilian possession of firearms. Yet there is a bit of a problem there too.
Looks to me like a story about the social effects of a relatively new and not yet widely known bit of technology. If you don't like reading such stories, fine. But don't claim it's "nontech"--that just makes you look stupid.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's *highly* relevant in this case because Sikhs are required by their religion to wear turbans (which you otherwise don't see too many folks in the US wearing), and because they tend towards ethnic homogeneity (nearly all of them are Punjabis), they're considered an ethnic group in many countries.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Hopefully, someday soon, someone will invent a "search engine" for the Internet into which you can type a word or two, like say... I dunno... "Sikh religion", maybe, and be shown a long list of links to resources containing all manner of information about the thing described by the word or phrase you typed in.
Probably silly of me, I know--but, hey, I can dream, can't I?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
12 year old Sikhs don't wear turbans. So what does his religion have to do with it as it isn't immediately obvious what religion it is? The only thing that was "known" for sure is that it wasn't Christianity and that was only because he isn't white.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
I am just disturbed, disgusted really, by a pillar of the freedom's we enjoy with software is so ready to take other people's freedoms because of his fear. I wonder what he has to say about the government backdooring encryption?
Wait, no I don't. I've since thought about it some more and I'll simply conclude that I was mistaken in my beliefs that he was actually concerned with freedom and I can safely discount anything more he says because he's now suspect. Any time he has fear as a motivation, he'll fall on the side of reductions of freedom. I can not respect that kind of person but I can respect that we have a different interpretation of freedom. So, I'll just ignore him. It won't change donation habits, it won't change how I feel about anyone else, it simply has made it so that I can no longer take him as anything other than a caricature.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Even though the Muslim kid was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction he got an overwhelming positive response. Unfortunately, being a Sikh, this kid is unlikely to get any sympathy or a trip to the white house - even though it looks like a mistake. Now if the Sikhs rioted, killed and raped people then this would be different - but unlike Islam, Sikhism holds to their being value in all religions, equality, and use of violence only as a last resort when dealing with violence against themselves or defending other innocents. Such a belief is unlikely to get politicians falling over themselves to appease and say that you are the religion of peace.
There is no formal age for becoming a baptized Sikh. ... It can be carried on any time when a Sikh thinks he or she is ready.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
In Australia we had the right to access to firearms, legally, until 1996 and the Port Arthur massacre. Since then we have had a very progressive, but noticable, whittling down of citizen rights and increased amount of surveilance. Whilst this sort of interference from the state is unconstitutional in the US, we have no such protections here and whilst the police are generally quite professional it doesn't change the fact that, in Australia our armed forces can be deployed against and fire on our own citizens with the protection of the law.
Whilst I recognise the situation in the US is insane I think you have to find a solution other than giving up your rights. Once the populous' access to force is gone our experience here is that both sides of politics will progressively remove any remaining rights.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
To my mind, one of the worst aspects of this matter (as reported) is that no one appears to have investigated, questioned or even challenged the boy who made the allegations against Armaan Singh. As Paula Young Lee wrote in the Salon article linked to,
'In Armaan’s case, a nameless “bully” targeted the most vulnerable kid in striking range at his school: a boy with a serious heart condition who was not only the new kid but whose race and religion identified him as an outsider. The bully chose his victim well: the police are vociferously defending their actions despite no evidence of any wrongdoing on Armaan’s part. Instead, at every step of the way, the bully’s lie was supported, endorsed, and reinforced by the actions of every adult authority figure who ought to have known better. That they did not is far more troubling than a child acting cruelly. The institutional response is only comprehensible inside a racist framework that makes it seem reasonable to assume that all brown people are Islamic extremists conspiring to blow up white Americans, and presumed to be guilty rather than innocent'.
On the face of it - based on what Armaan and his family told the media - Armaan did nothing wrong, but the other boy bullied him, then maliciously lied to the authorities. It was this other boy (if anyone) who is guilty of making a bomb threat. Yet somehow it is the brown-skinned lad who finds himself in police detention and in court.
There is something deeply ironic that Americans find it so easy and natural to accused a brown person of conspiring to bomb them, since Americans - through their armed forces, the CIA, and other agencies - have killed literally millions of brown Asian people. Notably at least 3 million in South-East Asia, and about the same number in Iraq. Is there some kind of subconscious guilt operating here?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Give Texass back to Mexico.
So true. Islam shows that where concessions are concerned crime does pay.
Like the rest of the posters, this appears to be horrible. However, the whole story is somehow missing something. The detention center, the ankle bracelet, don't make sense. I get the 'overzealous' immediate response to perceived threat by a 'foreigner fearin' set of authorities. As wrong as that is. What I don't get the detention center, bracelet, and not notifying parents for three days. Just seems there's something not being said.
Grr... need to proof-read better. *** Very few people have actually suggested that law abiding people not get to keep their guns. ***
Try reading Bruce Perens' post above. He probably wants to take guns away but is fine with encryption and free speech because Constitution and fails to see the irony.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
You can get a 12-year-old to say anything if you scare them enough. Ever read The Crucible?
Sikhs are often targeted by discrimination, often from idiots that thinks turbans = muslim terrorists. So yes it is likely to be important in this case and should be reported.
I'm sure you don't mean to, but you sound like an absolute dickhead when you use that word.
I know how unpopular it is NOT to just jump on the "dumb ass Texans bandwagon," but it seems to me this post is completely one-sided. Reading the articles, it appears Armaan did joke about having a bomb in his bag. The Dallas area has had a number of escalating bomb threats in recent weeks.
From the /. post: "Armaan's story is that another student said his bag looked like it had a bomb in it, and that he would report it. Believing it to be a joke, Armaan laughed."
Of course, this is Amman's story days after the incident. Of course, his side of the story will make him look as innocent as is possible.
Police, however, said: "Singh confessed to telling a fellow student that he had a bomb in his backpack."
“People have got to learn they cannot make these types of threats, which cause alarm, which cause evacuations,” police spokesman Lt. Christopher Cook told the Morning News. “Just because you say it’s a joke, it doesn’t get you out of trouble.”
We need to open our bear-trap minds minds a millimeter and understand there are two sides to every story.
Now, do I think the solution is locking a kid up for three days? No. But obviously, authorities in the Dallas area are exasperated by the number of bomb threats and they're trying to send a message. At 12-years-old, the kid should have known better than to joke about having a bomb.
I even sided with clock boy until his family decided they were going to sue for millions of dollars and send him off to the Middle East for college -- even after every venerable institution in the science and education community sided with him and the president invited him for tea and crumpets. Then we saw the real side of that family.
also in terms of the stakes
Why would the Jesus freaks tout Ayn Rand, a stout atheist. Maybe you shouldn't stereotype.
If you expect anyone to hold self-consistent positions in all areas of their life, you have not been paying attention. Anyone beyond you and me, of course. We alone are the bastions of cool rationality. And I'm not so sure about me.
Pretty much redneck retards live in Texas, so par for the course. Hope the Sikh kid sues their ass off.
In Great Britain most cops don't have guns. The ones who do have a distressing tendency to kill innocent people.
So, yes, I'd take them from the police too.
Bruce Perens.
I'll tell you another secret then. Open Source was a mistake. I am not a Freetard any longer.
Bruce Perens.
Politics. America has a very partisan, adversarial political culture. That sometimes forces ideologies together that you might expect to be opposed, because they have a common enemy and a common political party.
I appreciate your honesty and I appreciate that you've a right to hold and voice an opinion. I've never been an open source zealot but I do hold those who are in high esteem so long as they're not forcing everyone to follow their lead. They've a right to their beliefs but no right to force others to adhere to their standards.
I think we're through here. Thank you for the response and confirmation.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It's more likely I'll be hit by lightening than get shot by several orders of magnitude than it is for me to get shot and I live in central Florida.
Can we turn the paranoid nut job off and have a rational conversation, Bruce? Or would you just prefer to cower in irrational fear?
Get help
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Uh, one of the groups you mentioned is not like the others. Only a subset of one group is engaged in a Jihad, and that is Muslims.
I won't justify that, but that was a Sikh terror campaign against India in the early 80s, when the Indian government first formented a Sikh separatist movement, and later started fighting them for political advantages. It was not done to terrorize and convert any country, even India, into Sikhism. That's nothing like the Jihadi groups, which want to wipe out all non Islamic culture even in non Muslim countries, and replace them w/ their caliphate
NWS lists U.S. lightning fatalities here. 26 so far this year, although the figures seem to be several months delayed and the date on #26 has a typo. 1 in 700,000 per year get hit, from this. In contrast, there are 1 in 19,000 per year odds that you will be murdered, and about 69% of those involve firearms.
Uh, you really didn't do well on that one. Perhaps it's your mindset that needs adjustment?
Bruce Perens.
Actually, there are chances that this kid could get support from the same crowd for just one reason - being able to feed into their narrative about the eeevvviillll White racists. Up to now, they were looked at w/ suspicion for just standing up for Muslims, but by standing up for another group, they can gain some ill deserved credo.
Not that there was much support for Sikhs (and Hindus) some years back when Muslim activists were trying to snare and convert their girls to Islam
The Kellerman study was badly and tendentiously designed.
The worst flaw: that study only counted uses of a firearm that resulted in a dead body. If some guy kicked in the front door of a home, and the woman inside pointed a gun at him and he left, then Kellerman's study would not count that as a "use" of a firearm. Because most defensive uses of a firearm do not result in the weapon being fired, let alone anyone dying, this structurally stacked the deck against defensive gun uses.
That study also lumps in suicides with homicides. I have not seen any honest study that shows that a gun in the home causes an increase in the suicide rate.
The study started with people killed by firearms, which meant there was a 100% chance of a firearm being present, but then guessed whether there was a firearm in the home of a "matching" person. We have no way of knowing how many of the "guesses" were correct, and each case where they guessed wrong would lower their result. We literally cannot put error bars on the result.
Kellerman's own data showed much higher correlations: having an adult in the home who has a previous felony conviction for a violent crime is a much better predictor of the chance of violence.
There are plenty of articles on the flaws in the Kellerman study.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
Professor Gary Kleck's research shows that firearms are used effectively for defensive purposes many times per year.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
And I just posted links showing that the number of shootings (both accidental and intentional) has dramatically fallen at the same time that the number of firearms in the USA has dramatically risen. If the Kellerman study's conclusions were accurate, the number of shootings should have risen when the number of guns rose so much.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8501517&cid=51151345
It is a mistake to base any decisions on dishonest research.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I think a large part of the problem is: in most countries with strict gun laws people didn't already have guns.
When you change the laws in a country where a lot of people have guns, it's not going to be as effective.
While I'm for the gun laws, I do think it will take a very long time in a country like the US to have much of an effect.
Looking at the presidential candidates and how the US as a country is developing they might even need their guns (not that they could fight the army at all). ;-)
New things are always on the horizon
I think we're through here. Thank you for the response and confirmation.
You might think that but Bruce and those of his ilk won't be through until their particular view of freedom is enforced upon all (most likely at gunpoint).
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
I used to think you were a pretty decent guy. The more experience I have of you and your views the more that changes. The above quoted statement is the final nail in the coffin of any respect I had for you.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
The ones who do have a distressing tendency to kill innocent people.
So, yes, I'd take them from the police too.
Any references there Brucey. Or just another throwaway lefty canard that won't stand up to any real unbiased scrutiny?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Well, once you aim well and press that trigger - death happens.
More BS, as only 15% of handgun shootings are fatal.
So, maybe she should just watch the 250 pound guy play baseball.
with her head?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
It's sad, really. One of the things about liberty is that you allow others their liberties until they've proven they are unable to handle them responsibly and, at that point, you take away their liberties or freedom.
To explain my thinking: I'm free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. I do not have a right to kill you without justification. If I'm justified to kill you then I've the liberty to do so provided I've the freedom to do so.
I say that to establish what, exactly, the differences are between those phrases. Chances are rather good that you're already aware of them but I find that many people use them interchangeably or without actually knowing there are differences between them. Freedoms are taken by force or coercion. I have a pot of soup analogy that I've been working on for a few years now. I'll share it, if you're curious. You may have read my prior posts on the subject.
At any rate, the irony is thick here. He's now claiming open source is wrong and that he's no longer a "freetard." I can think of no better way to describe it than to say that I'm disappointed. Like, seriously, disappointed. I've never been a fan of zealots and he's always seemed to be one of the least zealous of the lot. I'm not sure what more to add to it. He's free to be his own person and he shouldn't care how I feel (and I hope he doesn't let my feelings influence him) but, at the same time, this is quite a change from the responses I've come to expect.
He's still got the technical chops and the domain knowledge so I'm sure that I'll still happily enjoy his posts. I'll just have to discount his opinions on a variety of subjects. I kind of hope he's just having a bad week or something. I dunno? It's sad, really. An example would be seeing RMS do ads for Microsoft and actually using their products. Now, I don't like zealots or anything but I'd be really disappointed to find him with a Hotmail account, Windows 10, an MSDN subscription, and doing a Superbowl ad for Microsoft. I might not like him exactly but I'd still be really disappointed to see the change.
As much as I dislike zealots, well, I think we kind of need them and I'm probably a bit zealous about some things. For example, if we had had a reasonable change in heart, as a nation, that had successfully negated the 2nd Amendment then I'd probably side with the law (there's no chance of that happening) or I'd just move. The only way that they'd be taking the firearms is by force and without the rule of law - it's the only way. Any other way is so improbable that we can safely call it impossible in this country and at this time. So, I'd not say that I'm really a zealot. I'd adhere to a lawful order to turn my firearms in or I'd move before the law took effect. That situation is impossible so the only conclusion is that it would have to have come down outside of the law and with an illegitimate government. I'd not turn my firearms over at that point.
Hmm... I'm not sure that I articulated that well. :/ Ah well... I'll elaborate if you need me to.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I read the Gary Kleck piece and he seems to be pretty biased and actually narcissistic in his presentation. And the other URLs you gave are obviously from pro-gun sites so I didn't go there. I'm still sticking with the report I cited as by far a better scientific reporting than the ones you gave. It's scientists trying to deal with an illness and its causes, rather than folks who started with a point and then used Polya's tactics to justify it.
I am not counting what you presented as honest research, sorry.
Bruce Perens.
I get this comment a lot. For the record, I would like to have the respect of my wife and kid. It's always been inherent in working for causes that I'd hear "I used to think you were cool and you've completely lost my respect". For some reason these people think I would be in some way bothered by their opinion, but it just comes with working for causes. I don't mind breaking some eggs. In fact, I like pissing people off for a good cause.
You harm my freedom by helping to put firearms in the hands of people who use them against innocent civilians. You are confident that you will never be one of those people, but the historical record is that lots of vets have ended up being the shooter in that sort of situation.
I'll keep working on the cause without your support.
Bruce Perens.
I think you're missing the history point. My dad certainly had read or heard of more than one returned G.I. who, for whatever reason, picked up his own firearm and did something insane to his own family. Cops do this stuff too. Here's a recent one. Senseless tragedy made possible by the convenience of his firearm.
You're sure you would never ever do such a thing and so was your dad. But history says otherwise. And any person of normal intelligence can take the fact that such things do happen, and conclude that they might happen to the most trusted, well-meaning people, including yourself.
Bruce Perens.
I understand you perfectly no need to elaborate.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Hey, did you SEE the link that I posted? It has ".gob.au? in it. So, if anybody is lying, it is YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
I did not make up those numbers.
1995 - 18.4% of homicides were by gun.
2012 - 17.5% of homicides were by gun.
If you think that YOUR government is lying, then please contact them. Maybe elect a new government. But DON'T blame ME for what YOUR country does.
And, yes, our society may be "violence crazed," but blame the culture, the parents, and the schools. Don't blame an inanimate object. Banning an object will not change the heart. And, yes, it is still possible to commit mass murder without guns. It happens all the time in other countries. A couple of months ago, guys with knives killed FIFTY people in China. Yes, really. Look it up.
And notice that I have enough intelligence to make my point without having to resort to swearing or personal insults. It is actually possible. You should try it sometime.
And, I am also wondering why you are so fascinated with my penis. My wife has no complaints about its size, but I do not intend to share any pictures of it with you. If you really want to see pictures of some, there are web sites dedicated to that. Maybe once you know what one looks like, the mystery will be gone and you can stop taking about them.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So, then why is the Australian Government LYING on its own web site about homicide statistics? The link that I gave began with "aic.gov.au." What reason do you have to believe that Australia is trying to slant their own numbers?
USA 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 8.2
USA 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 4.7
USA 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 684.5
USA 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 386.9
Australia 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.96
Australia 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.30
Australia 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 240
Australia 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 201
Here is the summary:
USA Violent crime - decrease by 43%
Australia Violent crime - decrease by 16%
USA Homicide - decrease by 42%
Australia Homicide crime - decrease by 33%
So, the data DOES indeed show that, overall, Australia is a safer county, However, since banning most guns, Australia has not shows NEARLY the decrease in crime that has been seen in the US.
The US also has MUCH more cultural diversity, both racially and culturally, a different overall culture, a different economy, different poverty levels, and a different mental health care system. So Australian and USA are not an "apples to apples" comparison. However, the purpose of this is to see what effect the Australian laws have had on their crime rate vs. the USA.
Also, this is an interesting graph. Note how the sudden jump in robbery a few years AFTER the new gun laws went into effect? Curious. Also note how the "sexual assault" line has remained fairly constant. http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti...
I am an honest man. Why in the world would you want to disarm an honest man? This is the thing that I absolutely cannot understand. Tell you what. If you want to live in a country without guns, there are several other countries just waiting for you. Instead of infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, just move somewhere with less freedom. That way, everybody is happier. I, for one, happen to enjoy living my own life the way that I want. I leave other people alone, and I expect the same from them. Why is that too much to ask? Do you enjoy forcing your opinions on others? Do you get a thrill from controlling people? If you don't like guns, don't buy one. It really is that simple. Tell you what. If you renounce your US citizenship, I will chip in $50 for a one-way ticket to the country of your choice, just to help you get started.
-- Source Data --
Data for US: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...
Data for Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
Used estimates of Australian population of 18.07 million for 1995 and 22.72 million for 2012
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
That sums up the NRA's perverse reading of the amendment very well. Since when has a sporting club been a "well organized militia"? Since when do you get to be part of a "well organized militia" without doing anything at all?
Smells like a sneaky back door tactic to me.
Once again, Texas is shown to be the armpit of planet Earth.
Because Charlie Manson and Al Capone had a "family" to "protect" as well?
Your think of the kiddies shit to justify a HOBBY is just ridiculous. In reality an axe handle is going to be far more useful in protecting your family than a gun that should should be storing secured and unloaded unless you are a complete and utter fucking idiot that is just asking for a housebreaker to steal your gun and use it on you.
The irony of not even being in a gun club, let alone real military and pretending to be part of a "well organized militia"? That's getting the bit that supposed to be about what became the National Guard backwards.
I don't think Bruce is the one getting things wrong this time. It's those who want to use these things as toys without the responsibility of serving their country that are getting it wrong.
Is it just so cowards can pretend they are part of a militia without risking their skin?
Australia went from 516 firearm deaths per year to 428 in the year of gun control enactment, and is now at 226. That's better than a 50% reduction in firearm deaths. And of course their population hasn't diminished! If you are reading otherwise, I suggest that someone's trying to distort the statistics.
I will restate why I would disarm you, an honest safety-trained shooter, although I've said it multiple times in this conversation.
Everybody has a crazy day in their lives. Everyone. And when that day comes, you will not be able handle your gun responsibly. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe something will. Given that there is an overall 1:1300 chance of dying from murder in your lifetime, you pose a small but finite risk to your wife and kids on that day. Or whoever is around you.
I have lived and worked in Norway and the U.K., and of course have traveled all over the world as a speaker. Every continent but Antartica so far. One reason I want to change things here (and yes, force them on you if that's the way it has to be) is my admiration for the security that people have in some of those nations that we don't have. And their freedom is in no way reduced, I would say that freedom from being murdered is a big part of freedom.
And sorry, but I don't think that I should have to live somewhere else so that you can have guns.
Bruce Perens.
So the tax on stupidity is very high there? That's what the seat belt fine is FFS!
Hang on - your first example is unmeasurable for a start and would be subject to interpretation even if it was - do you REALLY want to start out with something that renders everything written after it irrelevant?
Maybe you are going for emotional manipulation instead of reason. Is that the case?
Ahhhh yes. The old "firearm deaths" trope. I have a perfect plan for eliminating ALL firearm deaths. Nuke every single city. Kill everybody. Everybody would be dead, but on the plus side, no firearm deaths, and that is the only kind that actually counts, right?
Seriously, shouldn't the goal to be prevent all homicides, no matter what tool is used? Exchanging 100 gun deaths for 100 stabbing deaths makes people safer how, exactly?
Yes, Australia has had a reduction in firearm deaths, thanks to the firearm laws. But, strangely enough, those SAME laws have also somehow caused a reduction in stabbing deaths and beating deaths too! How could a gun law do that? Maybe, just maybe, it is because other factors have caused a drop in violent behavior. I have heard some speculation (unproven but compelling) that this could be caused by a reduction of lead in the environment (mostly leaded gasoline and paint).
And as I stated before, the overall homicide rate using any wapon dropped by 16% in Australia while it dropped by 43% in the USA (1995 to 2012). So, how effective are those laws?
Bull....shit. Maybe YOU know yourself well enough that you are afraid that you might do this if you have access to weapons. However, not all of us are similarly unbalanced.
But, if you happen to WANT to follow that line of reasoning, the average male is more than THIRTY times as likely to commit sexual assault as the average gun owner is to commit a murder each year. So, I will make a deal with with. I have four daughters that I very much care about. I will get rid of my guns, thereby posing no danger of murder to you or your family, if you get castrated, thereby posing no danger of sexual assault to my daughters. You are getting by far the better end of the deal since the odds of me becoming a murderer are much less than those of you becoming a rapist.
Please let me know if you want to take me up on this deal. Using your own logic, it makes perfect sense, because you want to take something away from people based on what your irrational fear says they might possibly do.
Sorry, but I don't think that I should have to give up basic human rights so that you can feel safer from your irrational fears.
Actually, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones," so if you want to minimize your chances of being a gun homicide victim, avoid "gun free zones" and you will certainly be safer.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I don't have any problem seeing why a reduction in the availability of firearms could cause an overall reduction of violence. Take away the guns, and the people who work to prevent violence (cops, etc.) can now do more non-firearm-related enforcement. Whine all you want about your rights. You curtail the freedom of everyone around you until that gun is gone, and theirs is the higher right. We'll get it out of your hands eventually.
Bruce Perens.
When it comes to virtual machines or software licenses, I will defer to your judgement, since you are an expert in that. When it comes to slinging a million transistors onto a slab of silicon, that you would listen to me, since that is what I do for a living.
When it comes to law enforcement, I tend to listen to the people who do it for a living. Too bad the police don't think that gun confiscation is a good idea.
Here is a survey from a police organization (as near as I can tell, without a hidden agenda about guns)... The vast majority of police do not think kindly of harsher gun laws. http://police-praetorian.netdn...
Here is an article from a Detroit news paper about how the police want the citizens to be armed. http://www.metrotimes.com/Blog...
Logically, if you COULD somehow take away ALL guns, we MIGHT be somewhat safer. Might. However, you have to then realize that young, healthy criminals would then feel free to victimize the elderly, since the average octogenarian could not fight back effectively. Women would also make more tempting targets. Without guns, physical skill and strength are vitally important in encounters with thugs.
Here are some things to keep in mind about strict gun laws....
1) Honest citizens will obey the laws, criminals will not.
2) There are a lot more honest citizens than there are criminals.
Thus it follows that taking guns away will affect the honest people a LOT more than it will the criminals.
Chicago has VERY strict gun laws, and yet that does not stop the shootings.
"But wait!" I hear you say. "Chicago gets its guns from other states that have very lax gun laws." OK. I admit that this may the case. So, why don't other states with lax gun laws (where the guns are available in the same town) have violence as bad as Chicago? Please explain that one.
Let's take a closer look at Chicago. The entire city has the SAME gun laws. Yet, somehow, the violence is isolated to certain areas. How can this be, since the gun laws are uniform? Well, economics are not uniform. The level of poverty is MUCH more closely related to the violence level than gun laws. Areas where the income is median or above do not generally have violence problems. This is not a "gun" problem, but a cultural and economic problem. If you have person willing and eager to kill, taking a gun away will just make that person use a knife. They might not be able to kill as many, but they will still manage to find a way to kill. Instead of focusing on making the murderer use a different weapon, why not focus on WHY the person desires to kill, and fix that?
We have a situation where morality is no longer being taught in schools. With record numbers of single-parent families, you have lots of children without the loving influence of a father. Plus, with the decline of acceptance of religious views, you have people being taught that they are nothing but animals. Add to that the new electronic society where people replace friends with computers. When you combine all that with poverty, is it any wonder that some turn to violence?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I read the Gary Kleck piece and he seems to be pretty biased and actually narcissistic in his presentation.
Hmm, then I apologize for choosing a poor link to use. What I got out of that is "for two decades I have been hearing the same criticisms and none of them are invalid" and I guess what you got from it is "narcissistic".
Better then would be to read his actual book. http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X The American Society of Criminology awarded Professor Kleck the Hindelang award for this book.
And the other URLs you gave are obviously from pro-gun sites so I didn't go there.
Perhaps you didn't realize it, but the Kellerman study was published in an obviously anti-gun publication.
Also, Arthur Kellerman has been a member of at least one anti-gun organization. (The latter link is to an obviously pro-gun web site, but it reproduces a letter to the editor published in a medical journal by a doctor. The doctor is an obviously pro-gun doctor, but he is providing evidence that Kellerman is an obviously anti-gun doctor, and I don't know how I would go about finding a completely unbiased source you would accept who has taken the trouble to research Kellerman and report on his membership in anti-gun organizations.)
Finally, here is a book I recommend: it thoroughly covers the statistics around violence and gun ownership. It concludes that cultural factors are much more important in violence than the number of available firearms. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy
It's scientists trying to deal with an illness and its causes, rather than folks who started with a point and then used Polya's tactics to justify it.
Oh, really? I have provided multiple links to you showing that Kellerman's study was structurally unsound. We cannot put error bars on its conclusions, it had a small sample size, and it only counted defensive uses of a firearm if they resulted in a dead body (which drastically under-counts defensive uses). Even if you believe that it was intended as an unbiased study, its flaws render its results useless.
Also, its predictions have not been borne out in the following two decades. I have provided evidence for you that the number of guns in the USA rose dramatically since the publication of the Kellerman study, while shootings of all kinds (accidental and intentional) declined dramatically. I am not going to claim that the drastic increase in guns caused the decline in shootings; but pretty clearly if a gun is 43 times more likely to hurt you than to be a benefit, the drastic increase in guns should have been correlated with a drastic increase in harm.
Here's a reference that presents these facts. This Economist article has graphs that show firearms deaths declining drastically since the early 1990s at the same time that the number of firearms in the USA dramatically increased. (By the way, the article ends with a sentence saying that the link between guns and violence "is obvious" despite the clear evidence to the contrary presented in the article. I doubt they cherry-picked any data to try to make firearms look less dangerous.)
Finally, if it is unbiased research you want, I recommend you read the Wright/Rossi/Daly book. The Carter administration funded research into gun control, and Wright and Rossi engaged in the research expecting to prove that gun control prevents violence. Their research showed the opposite, and changed their minds on the subject.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I'll state the statistical issue in a clearer way. The most important number is 1. There's always 1 gun in someone's hand at the time of a handgun murder. If we are to exclude manslaughter and suicide we get over 5700 murders for 2013. We also have 80,000 nonlethal injuries and even if we were to classify many of them as self-inflicted or accidents we'd be left with a lot.
So, what we need to do is get the guns used in those specific incidents out of people's hands.
And unfortunately we can't predict which are going to be the ones used. So, the only way to handle the issue without having godlike powers is to take all of them.
Sure, the link between handguns and violence is obvious. The fact that many have not been used for violence does not contradict that tens of thousands are per year.
Bruce Perens.
I met the assistant chief of police of ReykjavÃk when I spoke there. He explained to me that the police did not carry firearms because if the did, the criminals would as well.
Looking here, it seems that police are divided. The chief's organziation supported gun control and the sheriff's organization divided it.
I've been a deputy sheriff because the county found that to be the easiest way to get emergency services volunteers under their insurance. I think in some places people get that badge just for the gun privileges - concealed carry, etc.
Bruce Perens.
Isn't that Kleck explaining why sheriff's are for guns in that article? Because they're elected. So, they have to follow the electorate's wishes on gun issues. Chiefs are usually appointed.
I should also have mentioned that I'd like to disarm the police along with everyone else. They really don't like that, but it works well in the U.K. The ones with guns have a distressing tendency to shoot innocent people.
Bruce Perens.
Once the President disarms the Secret Service, and Hollywood celebrities get rid of their armed guards, then we can talk. In a democracy, should ONLY the ones with power and/or money be allowed to be protected by guns, when the rest of the citizens take their chances? It seems to me that EVERYBODY deserves a chance to protect themselves from those what would do them harm, not just the elite.
So, how well do you think that disarming police would work out in, say, Paris, when terrorists have guns?
Anyways, the genie is already out of the bottle. With around 300,000,000 gun in this country, do you really think that you could get them all back? The one that you COULD get back would be the ones turned in by honest people. The people who intend to do harm would not give them back. So, at this point, the best that you can do is the best that you can do.
I wonder if any of the victims of a mass shooting wished that THEY had their own gun to hopefully stand a chance of taking down the bad guy?
Let's break this down into binary (Gray code order):
00 -- Nobody has guns. Unlikely, but the advantage goes to the young, healthy criminal.
01 -- The criminals are unarmed, but the citizens are armed. This is an ideal scenario. Unlikely, but ideal.
11 -- Everybody is armed. Not ideal, but at least the citizens have a chance.
10 - Only the criminals are armed. The victims are pretty much screwed, but this is the most likely outcome with draconian gun laws.
So, have you had this discussion with Eric S. Raymond? I bet he has a bit of an opinion on this.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So, the only way to handle the issue without having godlike powers is to take all of them.
Can't be done. Impossible. You are dreaming.
As long as we are going to wish for the impossible, I wish that all the people who are willing to hurt others would simply be kind people who don't want to hurt others.
If you want me to believe that you can keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, first show me a place where junkies are unable to buy crack cocaine. Crack cocaine is not legal for anyone, anywhere... we have Draconian laws about it and those laws are enforced.
And yet the junkies are able to get their fix, week after week. (Most violent criminals who have a gun don't get a new one very often... certainly not every week.)
Thus, our choices as a society: either only criminals will have firearms, or everyone will have firearms. And Gary Kleck's research shows that legal firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens deters a substantial amount of violent crime each year.
I read an essay that I found very moving. It was written by a guy who worked for civil rights for black people in the deep South in the 1950's. He said that he will forever be opposed to any attempt to make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to have guns, or to give the police department authority to decide who may have guns and who may not. Black folks being legally armed prevented an uncountable but nonzero number of lynchings, and he said in some cases the local recruiting station for the KKK was the local police department.
TL;DR If you take away the legal defensive uses of firearms you will increase the amount of violent crime (by preventing some violent crimes from being deterred) and you will not prevent violent crime because criminals will still be armed.
Sure, the link between handguns and violence is obvious.
Handguns can be used to commit violent crimes, but they do not cause crimes. Violent criminals regard a firearm as a necessary tool of their trade, and they will have one.
If you somehow got the magical ability to get rid of all the firearms, people would still kill each other with knives, blunt instruments, and hands and feet. More people are killed by hands and feet each year in the USA than are killed by any weapon in the UK each year.
In the past two decades, the number of firearms in the USA has dramatically increased while at the same time the number of violent crimes has decreased. If guns caused crime, this would not be the case.
So, in the end, you and I want the same thing: as few violent crimes as possible, ideally none. We disagree on how best to achieve that.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
So, your nickname of dbiii stands for Douche Bag the Third, does it?
Quite appropriate.
Now go play in your sandbox while the adults have a conversation.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
The "adults" who don't put seatbelts on their kids?
If you were older and had used computers for long enough the nickname would be blindingly obvious.
The odds of dying from multiple causes:
http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Image...
I am planning on buying my first gun this week. I already have items in my home that can be used to commit suicide, that could poison me, and I drive probably more than average (including in high risk situations like driving on track). I have a healthy fear of heights and I don't smoke so that helps me on two big ones. Though I do love bacon.
That being said, I don't think my gun ownership will protect me against the gun violence category since I plan on having it for target shooting and recreational purposes, not self defense.
My point being is that many things are likely to kill you or the ones you love. You have to decide for yourself what risks you are willing to accept.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I assume then you are also working on the cause of disarming the police as they aren't exactly restrictive about using firearms against innocent civilians either. I mean England does just fine with unarmed police, why shouldn't we follow their example?
Of course, why stop there? The military does plenty of killing of innocent civilians too... There are several countries that do just fine with no military or at least a very reduced military considering what we have here. I can't imagine why we'd need a nuclear arsenal the purpose of which is only killing innocent civilians.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Who said anything about "seatbelts on their kids"? I specifically said the police can pull over someone, that someone being the driver, for deciding as an adult to not wear a seatbelt.
As to your nick, douche bag sure seems more appropriate than dbase. Since you seem to think your opinion on others wearing seatbelts is the only one that should be allowed. Even as you get more hysterical about it.
By the way, I've been using computer since around 1980. I was in grade school then, and my elementary school's programming class was not too demanding. But the programming class at the county education center was geared for adults. Add in the mainframes and minis I was trained to repair in the military in the 1990s, and the dot-matrix line printer with 136 print heads, and I am pretty sure I've worked on older systems than most people on this board, as well as a broader range.
Now, if this was just a dick waving competition, I'm sure you can make counter claims that are better than mine. I fully concede that someone with a nickname for product that came out after I had already taken my first computer courses may very well have been using computers before me. Congratulations in advance.
Now, please enlighten us more on how the government should be able to control every aspect of my life, as long as it is in line with your personal beliefs.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
There was quite a change from 2005 to 2006. Why so big a change in a single year?
Learn to love Alaska
Ah yes. When logic doesn't work, turn to FUD. Of course, since Australia and India are both in the Commonwealth, it's likely that an attack by China on Australia would result in India launching a ground war in China. So India does more to stop a Chinese invasion of Australia than gun ownership in Australia.
Learn to love Alaska
Sure. In much of the world, they aren't given to every officer anyway. The armed response teams get them, but the generic beat cop doesn't have them, and from those I've talked to, don't much want them.
Learn to love Alaska
The laws don't do this to themselves. The voters vote for people who do it. I blame the voters, and those who didn't vote.
Learn to love Alaska
My dad certainly had read or heard of more than one returned G.I. who, for whatever reason, picked up his own firearm and did something insane to his own family.
Which is not an excuse for him destroying a weapon HE had. Your dad was not those people, nor am I, nor are most of the people in the US. Yeah, gosh, someone did something bad with something. Let's ban something so we stop all the evil people from doing bad things. What a ridiculous argument.
You're sure you would never ever do such a thing and so was your dad. But history says otherwise.
Bullshit. History doesn't force me to do something like that. You don't know me or my dad but you'll make ludicrous and insulting claims about how I'm going to shoot someone because I have a gun. You are arrogant and ignorant, and that is a bad combination for someone who creates laws for other people.
And any person of normal intelligence
You aren't the only smart person on the planet, and you're opinion isn't the only smart opinion on the planet. You shoot yourself in the foot with your own arrogance when you make arguments like that.
your first example is unmeasurable
Can't be perfectly measured, but can be estimated by interviewing people and asking questions. (Similarly, before an election, the number of votes for each candidate is unmeasurable; yet the polls accurately predicted that Barack Obama would be elected President.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
https://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns
Because of the different methods used to collect the data, estimates vary wildly. But all of the estimates agree that most of the time, a weapon is not even fired, let alone someone killed by a defensive gun use.
Maybe you are going for emotional manipulation instead of reason. Is that the case?
No, that is not the case.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
The biggest obstacle to sensible gun laws is the polarization and rhetoric. If the NRA sounded reasonable, gun control advocates would pay more attention to them. If the gun control advocates would normally produce sensible law proposals, the NRA would pay attention. Sitting in the middle here, the NRA sounds like a bunch of gun wackos, and the gun control advocates propose stupid laws.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
All this over seatbelts? Do you really want me to laugh at you and consider you some worthless loser incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions?
IMHO people going apeshit about seatbelt laws are like the "weather rock" where you know it's raining because the thing is wet. It's a good detector for the "give me stupidity and give me death" people who like to call themselves "libertarians" until they need a government to protect them from something.
You brought up the seatbelts yourself so you can't blame me for making you look stupid. However my point stands, the reason the fines went up is because what started off as a small fine to discourage a behaviour turned into a tax on stupidity when the behaviour kept on happening. As should be obvious people in politics are always looking for a way to get money that will not be unpopular so this tax on stupidity happened instead of it staying as a small fine.
You tell me - all I did was point out your silly namecalling about my nick was wrong and gave you a clue as to where it came from, not that it actually matters.
All this because I pointed out the obvious - a small fine for breaching a safety regulation was turned into a revenue stream by the unscrupulous because it's hard to challenge a tax on stupidity.
Wrong. The NRA has always asserted that if you take away guns then murders would choose another weapon. I simply used that same logic.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Kids with no seatbelts are an obvious consequence of people ignoring regulations about seatbelts.
First, why does it matter if it is either a consequence, or an obvious one? I grew up when most people didn't wear seatbelts, most kids had free range in the back of a car, and we even rode in the bed of the pickup to go to town. But, oh no, some douche bags decided that couldn't be allowed to exist, so they worked very hard, and lied about their goals, to ensure everyone had to follow the rules they thought were the 'way things ought to be'.
Since you keep calling the law a "tax on stupidity", and you keep harping on children not being buckled in, you apparently support the government rules that make personal choices you don't agree with illegal.
Now why are you getting so worked up about it?
Why am I getting worked up because you support the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life? Maybe because you are supporting the government's over-regulation of every aspect of my personal life.
Whether I wear a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether my child wears a seatbelt or not is not of your concern. Whether you and your family wear seatbelts is not of my concern. I am perfectly fine with you deciding for yourself and your children what level of safety you are comfortable with. Some people don't let their children play outside in their own front yard, and I am ok with their choice. Others let their children run all over the neighborhood, either on their own or with a group of friends and siblings. I am ok with the choice of those parents as well, even though sometimes one of those kids never makes it back home. I am ok with either choice because the parents are making their own choice about their own children.
But you, dbiii, think you, through government regulation, have the right to force me to make a choice you find appropriate regarding not only my choice of my own personal safety, but what level of safety I choose for my own children in our daily lives.
All this over seatbelts? Do you really want me to laugh at you and consider you some worthless loser incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions?
You have shown this is exactly how you regard people who make choices you don't agree with. Why stop now?
IMHO people going apeshit about seatbelt laws are like the "weather rock" where you know it's raining because the thing is wet. It's a good detector for the "give me stupidity and give me death" people
Again, you have the all too common idea that those people who make choices you don't agree with are simply stupid. You also have the all too common idea that people who don't think like you do must be punished. You can't imagine any scenario where someone makes an important choice you don't agree with where that person is not just right, but actually justified.
who like to call themselves "libertarians" until they need a government to protect them from something.
I don't know all these people who call themselves "libertarians" to start with, much less ones that want the government to protect them from themselves.
You brought up the seatbelts yourself so you can't blame me for making you look stupid.
I can't credit you with it either, since you haven't done so.
However my point stands,
The one where you get to decide how I raise my children? Or the one where you get to decide I raise my self? I guess it might be the point that you get to make everyone else's decisions for them.
I wouldn't say your point stands, so much as you simply stand by your belief that only people that agree with you are allowed to make decisions.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You tell me - all I did was point out your silly namecalling about my nick was wrong and gave you a clue as to where it came from, not that it actually matters.
So your claim of "If you were older and had used computers for long enough" wasn't the point of your statement? Now that I have shown your assumption false, you can just hand-wave it away. I guess you didn't expect to have this discussion with someone who actually has used computers for a few decades.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That is certainly true. I still blame the politicians who swore up and down that the law would never be applied as anything other than an "additional fine" tacked onto a ticket for other activity such as speeding. If they had been honest and said it would become a primary offense withing a few years, people would have been calling their representatives and giving them an earful.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That's right, just like I don't support poison in milk to get a better score on quality tests either. Safety rules are there for a reason. In this case the small penalty designed to discourage didn't stop the stupid, so people in politics saw that it wasn't going to hurt their standing if they gouged out a bit of money by putting a tax on that stupidity. See also taxes on cigarettes for an example of picking on a group that can safely be taxed more than others. I don't make the rule or do the gouging, I'm just pointing it out.
Why you took such a thing so personally that you went full adhom on my alias (been here a while but never seen something that petty) I've got absolutely no idea.
Of course I don't get to decide. The government that you have a part in choosing, unless you are far too lazy to do your duty as a citizen and vote, is what decides with feedback from courts, interested citizens and the whole shebang. You can be and probably should be part of the process. Don't like the law - then bother someone, bicycle helmet laws have been changed that way and that's fairly similar.
Who said it was about you? Is all this shit and insults I only know about from bad movies about high schools because you thought the "tax on stupidity" was calling you stupid and not describing how the cash grab works?
So why didn't you show the letter to the cop and avoid the entire drama?
Given that it's a medical reason and not a objection to the law why the obsession as if it is not just a sensible exception to the rule?
I know a few people who are alive, myself included, for the "medical reason" that they were wearing seatbelts at the time of very serious accidents so I really don't get the obsession.
As for the "can do whatever you like with your own kids" thing, as you well know societies everywhere say otherwise and jails are full of people that have done things to their children that society considers criminal so your blustering bullshit trying to bully your way through an argument that way is extremely tasteless.
No, the people who increased the cost of the fines that you mentioned are very obviously the ones that are focusing on the dollar amount. Getting me mixed up with them just because I described how they can get away with that gouging is utterly ridiculous.
What did you expect as a response to some shit about something to do with bodily functions? You got the clue and it didn't insult you directly like the shit out of high school comedies that you sent hilariously in my direction, which made me think you are probably thirty years younger than you probably are.
I really don't get why you want an apology for a mild response to such name calling - such an attitude doesn't make you sound like someone who has used computers for a few decades either, but I'll have to take you word for it.
The politicians who passed it are usually not the ones that expand it. It's the next generation of politicians that corrupt anything that came before, then blame their predecessors for the problem they caused. The current politicians could easily solve the problem, but choose not to.
Learn to love Alaska
That statistic came from a survey where a defensive gun use was *only* counted if the firearm was used and the attacker was shot (or killed, I don't remember). It discounted a vast majority of incidents where either no shot was fired but the firearm deterred the attacker or the attacker was merely wounded.
So if I use a firearm for protection from an attacker and do not discharge it, it does not count. Wait, what?