2 things. First of all, sleeping with a gun under your pillow is fucking stupid. Put it nearby, but not under your pillow. Second, i'd rather have the gun and at least a chance of fighting back than be helpless when the burglar decides to put a baseball bat through my skull. Maybe you'd just rather lie there and do nothing though.
How about losing the freedom to defend our own lives and those of our family? That one has always been rather important to those of us that enjoy staying alive. You can only take guns away from people who are willing to obey the law. You can't keep them out of the hands of those who don't care about the law. Personally, I'd rather the law-abiding people be as well armed as the criminals.
Because he attempted to wrongfully take the life of an innocent person. If you have so little respect for the lives of others, you are not fit or safe to live among them. If you're lucky, you won't be killed and will just end up in jail, but the right of the innocent person to defend themself takes precedence. It has to. Otherwise you're saying that their life isn't worth defending. If someone is going to die (and you can't deny that it does come down to that sometimes), it's better for it to be the criminal.
How do you propose to get rid of all the guns? Make everyone pinky-swear that they won't get one illegally? Jebus. Haven't people learned anything from prohibition and the drug war? You can't keep people from smuggling illegal things into the country. Even when it comes in massive quantities. It simply isn't possible to get rid of all the guns. Did you see the news a few months back about how many weapons the FBI has "misplaced"? Banning guns is just idiotic.
Laws against murder are a whole different animal. By outlawing murder, you aren't taking away anyone's ability to defend themselves or their family. In fact, self-defense is one of the very few accepted reasons for killing someone that won't get you tossed in jail. Laws against guns simply puts law-abiding people at a distinct disadvantage against criminals. That's not a good thing for a law to do.
How does one prove that he had his gun locked up when it was stolen? I would guess that the robber would simply grab the whole gun case and deal with the lock later. How do you prove it was locked rather than that the robber just wanted a case to go along with the gun?
Granted, there are people like that on both sides. However, the real problem is a lack of conclusive research. I don't own a gun. I'm not an NRA member. What I have done is read tons of info and arguments by both sides. I've been through dozens of websites, both for and against. What I have come to believe based on the evidence I've seen so far is that having the right to own a gun, at least in America, is better than not having that right. I used to think the exact opposite, and I can't say that I wouldn't change my mind again if I was presented with some convincing evidence. I don't think it necessarily applies to other countries or cultures, but here, I think it's right. In the end, I want to keep myself and my family as safe as possible, just like most anybody else would. I do plan to learn to use a gun soon. I may even buy one someday. I'd like to know that I'll still have that right.
How are we supposed to protect ourselves against an oppresive government when we are not allowed to own weaponry equal to that used by our government.
I agree with you somewhat here, but I think that if it came down to overthrowing the government, then much of the military would side with the citizenry (since they are citizens like us), thus giving us big guns on our side. I think that the Brady Law was stupid in that it couldn't come up with a non-vague notion of what an assault rifle is. Ask anyone in the military what it is and you'll find that it's a rifle capable of burst or automatic fire. Yet the Brady Law seemed to simply decide based on how a rifle looked rather than what it was capable of. They outlawed even some semi-automatic rifles. Hell, it could be bolt-action, but if it was a bullpup design, it would be outlawed. Why? Cause it looks intimidating I guess. Who knows.
Right, and just try getting an insurance company to pay if the vehicle was stolen when the accident occurred. My car was parked on the street and got hit by a pickup truck in the middle of the night. The truck was found a few houses down the next morning, with the steering column broken open, but also with the alarm set. The owner claims it was stolen (which is BS, but that's beside the point), so his insurance company refused to pay for the damage to my car. So, I don't really see how having insurance makes any difference in such a situation.
Many places already do this. I have no problem with it as long as it's not abused (i.e. favoratism to public officials or celebrities, etc.) and it's not tied to particular weapons. As for the bit about being more likely to kill a family member, that's hogwash that came out of one horribly flawed study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) that gets repeated ad nauseum.
Granted, this is only one study, but Gary Kleck's study did show that people who defended themselves with a gun were less likely to be injured than those that offered no resistance. Of course it doesn't apply in every situation. If someone is pointing a gun at your face, you're not gonna reach for the gun in your back pocket. You're gonna do what they say. Unless you're sure enough that they're gonna shoot you to make the risk of grabbing your own gun worth it. I tend to put a little more faith in Kleck's study than many others, since he is pretty conservative in his methods and the conclusions he draws and he isn't locked into an ideology. He was pro-gun-control, but still willing to actually investigate. I give him credit for that.
The problem is that there are far too many factors to account for when you attempt to compare one country against another. There's legal, cultural, geographic, social, and many other factors to consider. These things need to be at least isolated to a given country. Probably even at state or city level. What works for one may not work for others. Trying to impose the same solution on everyone is sure to cause major problems.
Of course it correlates. That's what you were saying. Proving causation is a lot tougher, but as you say, it would be an very impressive coincidence if there is no causation.
While I agree that the ending was something of a letdown, I still think that getting that far was a LOT of fun, which made the game worth buying anyway. Sure, I'd like to see better endings in DX2, but I'll buy it for the killer gameplay anyway.
Probably because it couldn't compete feature-wise with the PVRs already out there that WILL let you skip commercials and FF and RW as much as you like. Yeah, you have to pay a bit more for those, but people seem to be willing to pay a bit more to avoid the commercials and actually have control over what they watch and when they watch it.
Roger that. Didn't mean to imply that that was a bad thing. Just trying to figure out what the heck he was getting at with his comment about police being outgunned.
The site I linked to provides MANY MANY references to back up their claims. I suggest you read it and investigate the references as well if you wish, and then if you still disagree you can at least explain why. Seems to me that they have some very good reasons and evidence to back up their opinions.
The official reason for his arrest was not that he gave a speech about how to bypass Adobe's security, but because he sold or gave out tools specifically designed to circumvent Adobe's security mechanisms. That would be a violation of the DMCA. Now, personally, I think arresting him was stupid. He is a programmer working for a corporation. They should be charging the corporation with the crime, not an individual who was working for it. But, as usual, they're trying to make an example out of someone, regardless of whether it is right or just.
Slashdot Mirror
And you don't have to worry about breathing anymore if you ever do actually need it. Nice, huh?
2 things. First of all, sleeping with a gun under your pillow is fucking stupid. Put it nearby, but not under your pillow. Second, i'd rather have the gun and at least a chance of fighting back than be helpless when the burglar decides to put a baseball bat through my skull. Maybe you'd just rather lie there and do nothing though.
How about losing the freedom to defend our own lives and those of our family? That one has always been rather important to those of us that enjoy staying alive. You can only take guns away from people who are willing to obey the law. You can't keep them out of the hands of those who don't care about the law. Personally, I'd rather the law-abiding people be as well armed as the criminals.
As someone just above posted, 75% of US police shot, are either shot by their own gun, or another offices gun.
I can't seem to find that post, which isn't surprising considering that there's nearly 2000 posts in this story now. Did he provide a link? Could you?
Because he attempted to wrongfully take the life of an innocent person. If you have so little respect for the lives of others, you are not fit or safe to live among them. If you're lucky, you won't be killed and will just end up in jail, but the right of the innocent person to defend themself takes precedence. It has to. Otherwise you're saying that their life isn't worth defending. If someone is going to die (and you can't deny that it does come down to that sometimes), it's better for it to be the criminal.
That's cause their parents are obviously fucking idiots to begin with.
People with guns stop criminals better :)
How do you propose to get rid of all the guns? Make everyone pinky-swear that they won't get one illegally? Jebus. Haven't people learned anything from prohibition and the drug war? You can't keep people from smuggling illegal things into the country. Even when it comes in massive quantities. It simply isn't possible to get rid of all the guns. Did you see the news a few months back about how many weapons the FBI has "misplaced"? Banning guns is just idiotic.
Laws against murder are a whole different animal. By outlawing murder, you aren't taking away anyone's ability to defend themselves or their family. In fact, self-defense is one of the very few accepted reasons for killing someone that won't get you tossed in jail. Laws against guns simply puts law-abiding people at a distinct disadvantage against criminals. That's not a good thing for a law to do.
How does one prove that he had his gun locked up when it was stolen? I would guess that the robber would simply grab the whole gun case and deal with the lock later. How do you prove it was locked rather than that the robber just wanted a case to go along with the gun?
Granted, there are people like that on both sides. However, the real problem is a lack of conclusive research. I don't own a gun. I'm not an NRA member. What I have done is read tons of info and arguments by both sides. I've been through dozens of websites, both for and against. What I have come to believe based on the evidence I've seen so far is that having the right to own a gun, at least in America, is better than not having that right. I used to think the exact opposite, and I can't say that I wouldn't change my mind again if I was presented with some convincing evidence. I don't think it necessarily applies to other countries or cultures, but here, I think it's right. In the end, I want to keep myself and my family as safe as possible, just like most anybody else would. I do plan to learn to use a gun soon. I may even buy one someday. I'd like to know that I'll still have that right.
How are we supposed to protect ourselves against an oppresive government when we are not allowed to own weaponry equal to that used by our government.
I agree with you somewhat here, but I think that if it came down to overthrowing the government, then much of the military would side with the citizenry (since they are citizens like us), thus giving us big guns on our side. I think that the Brady Law was stupid in that it couldn't come up with a non-vague notion of what an assault rifle is. Ask anyone in the military what it is and you'll find that it's a rifle capable of burst or automatic fire. Yet the Brady Law seemed to simply decide based on how a rifle looked rather than what it was capable of. They outlawed even some semi-automatic rifles. Hell, it could be bolt-action, but if it was a bullpup design, it would be outlawed. Why? Cause it looks intimidating I guess. Who knows.
Ford and Firestone were sued because their product was defective. The bullets obviously work as intended.
Right, and just try getting an insurance company to pay if the vehicle was stolen when the accident occurred. My car was parked on the street and got hit by a pickup truck in the middle of the night. The truck was found a few houses down the next morning, with the steering column broken open, but also with the alarm set. The owner claims it was stolen (which is BS, but that's beside the point), so his insurance company refused to pay for the damage to my car. So, I don't really see how having insurance makes any difference in such a situation.
Many places already do this. I have no problem with it as long as it's not abused (i.e. favoratism to public officials or celebrities, etc.) and it's not tied to particular weapons. As for the bit about being more likely to kill a family member, that's hogwash that came out of one horribly flawed study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.) that gets repeated ad nauseum.
Granted, this is only one study, but Gary Kleck's study did show that people who defended themselves with a gun were less likely to be injured than those that offered no resistance. Of course it doesn't apply in every situation. If someone is pointing a gun at your face, you're not gonna reach for the gun in your back pocket. You're gonna do what they say. Unless you're sure enough that they're gonna shoot you to make the risk of grabbing your own gun worth it. I tend to put a little more faith in Kleck's study than many others, since he is pretty conservative in his methods and the conclusions he draws and he isn't locked into an ideology. He was pro-gun-control, but still willing to actually investigate. I give him credit for that.
The problem is that there are far too many factors to account for when you attempt to compare one country against another. There's legal, cultural, geographic, social, and many other factors to consider. These things need to be at least isolated to a given country. Probably even at state or city level. What works for one may not work for others. Trying to impose the same solution on everyone is sure to cause major problems.
Of course it correlates. That's what you were saying. Proving causation is a lot tougher, but as you say, it would be an very impressive coincidence if there is no causation.
While I agree that the ending was something of a letdown, I still think that getting that far was a LOT of fun, which made the game worth buying anyway. Sure, I'd like to see better endings in DX2, but I'll buy it for the killer gameplay anyway.
They haven't quite perfected this technology yet.
Probably because it couldn't compete feature-wise with the PVRs already out there that WILL let you skip commercials and FF and RW as much as you like. Yeah, you have to pay a bit more for those, but people seem to be willing to pay a bit more to avoid the commercials and actually have control over what they watch and when they watch it.
Roger that. Didn't mean to imply that that was a bad thing. Just trying to figure out what the heck he was getting at with his comment about police being outgunned.
If consumers want something, then somebody will sell it. It may cost more, but hey, that's the way it works.
The site I linked to provides MANY MANY references to back up their claims. I suggest you read it and investigate the references as well if you wish, and then if you still disagree you can at least explain why. Seems to me that they have some very good reasons and evidence to back up their opinions.
The official reason for his arrest was not that he gave a speech about how to bypass Adobe's security, but because he sold or gave out tools specifically designed to circumvent Adobe's security mechanisms. That would be a violation of the DMCA. Now, personally, I think arresting him was stupid. He is a programmer working for a corporation. They should be charging the corporation with the crime, not an individual who was working for it. But, as usual, they're trying to make an example out of someone, regardless of whether it is right or just.