Unfortunately he did, which is why he has a regular column in NYT. However his articles have nothing to do with his field and everything to do with promoting his particular political ideology.
The entire discussion about crazed killers is irrational and emotional. 55 people/year on average get killed in random mass shootings, and that number hasn't gone up since the 90s despite the impression you might get from the media. More people get killed by lightning each year.
Hate to reply to AC but UK has the highest violent crime rate of any developed country and it went UP, not down after the ban. Just google 'violent crime uk'. It is almost 5 times higher than the US:
UK: ~2000 cases of violent crime per 100K resident, US: ~500 cases per 100K residents.
Violent crime in the UK dramatically increased after guns were banned. That's just a fact. It is the highest of any 1st world country. It is much higher than in the USA in every category except homicides. And homicides are counted differently, with FBI counting wider range of crimes as homicides than UK police. The homicides were much lower than in the USA, before and after that ban, that didn't get affected at all by the gun ban. All the ban did in the UK was to put law abiding citizens at mercy of criminals and then try to have police handle everything with essentially implementing a police state with cameras on every corner and it didn't work.
As per SCOTUS decision in Dick Heller case, as well as per common sense reading of the constitution, one of the primary reasons for gun ownership in the USA is self defense. So there goes your requirement to keep guns locked and ammo separate. It will never happen because it defeats one of the primary purposes of owning a gun.
Ok so lets see how much sense would an "assault" (an actual assault gun is full-auto, which is already banned, but whatever) gun ban make.
- The largest number of deaths by gun by far are suicides - ban makes no difference - Second larges are guns used illegally by felons - ban makes no difference - Third largest are guns used by police or citizens in legitimate self-defense - ban makes no difference - The number of cases of legally held guns being used in committing a murder is relatively small. However, even the then the gun used in over 99.9% of the cases is not an "assault" gun, usually its a handgun - assault weapon ban makes no difference - The actual shootings by an "assault" gun are extremely rare. But even then, the actually proposed return to Clinton's restrictions on magazine capacity and some other features of those guns would have made NO DIFFERENCE. He could have changed the mag slightly more often, or he could have used a handgun.
So the answer, obvious from the beginning, is that a lot of time and money will be spent in passing an extremely complex piece of legislation that will throw the US gun industry into a tailspin and cause loses of millions of dollars and many jobs, while making ZERO DIFFERENCE in making anybody safer.
Will this stop Obama from proceeding? Of course not. It is not about safety, it is about polls.
Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to increase the black turnout for Obama in November. FTFY
Let's not forget this event happened several months before it was mysteriously chosen, out of hundreds of other homicide cases, to be dragged out into the national spotlight by the media, complete with misleading and inflammatory pictures and storyline.
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Why are the red states the ones that get more from the government than they give?
That is a meaningless question. The fact is that on the whole, Republican voters pay more in taxes, Democrat voters pay less and receive more. Even in the blue states the most productive people tend to vote Republican? Look at the demographic breakdown in the polls and even in California the college educated, small business owners, mid to higher income are overwhelmingly Republican voters. Low income, low education, young people and minorities (but in particular low income minorities - high income are also Republican) are the Democrat voters and they are not producing the money that goes to the red states.
Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.
That's not what would happen. What would happen is that other "important" people who happen to be political or otherwise enemies of those on the list would attack them for their own advantage while secretly thanking God that their own favorite prostitute wasn't the one raided.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion.
Absolutely false, and incredibly naive. I fully understand science and I am not the slightest bit "anti-religion". I don't believe that a God exist but that does not make me anti-religion. Your mistake is to think of beliefs as being about the truth, rather than about what works. The fact that every single society in the history of human race was based on religion should make a science guy like you at least consider a possibility that it has a strong evolutionary advantages and that it shouldn't be dismissed so callously, not least because the evidence is that as soon as you kill one religion another one (potentially a lot worse than what we have now) will spring up. Once you understand the pitifully small role that reason (as compared to memes) plays in 'thinking' of humans, yes, including you, and the complexity of a society then you will understand that trying to base it on reason (rather than on fixed commands from 'above') is naive and dangerous.
California is spending money to keep jobs in-state.
They can keep jobs in state by relaxing ridiculous regulation. California is number one in the nation in term of losing jobs and productive people in the last few years and the main cause is the overbearing business regulation and taxes. A 10 million grant to a specific hand picked oh so green and wonderful company isn't going to make a slightest bit of difference. In any case, as soon as Tesla becomes a mature auto maker instead of a novelty company they will move their manufacturing where its cheaper. How else will they compete with Toyota, Nissan etc, not to mention the incoming horde of Chinese car companies?
And good riddance to one of the most overpriced and inefficient NASA programs and hello to the age of private space exploration. In 2011 money, the total cost of the space shuttle program was $190 billion (or $1.5 billion per launch) and let's face it, it wasn't worth it.
And as Dr. Robert Lefkowitz is BxSci class of 59, this is the 8th Nobel won by one of their Grads (the other 7 are in Physics), Not bad for one High school - more than all of Australia
And (except for the bogus peace prize) twice as many as all of the world's Muslims.
I should mention that I was only speaking of the law as it stands. I happen to disagree with defamation laws in general and even more so when the law suit is brought by an alleged champion of unlimited free speech but that's a different issue.
Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.
True but irrelevant.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them." (Australian defamation law is basically the same as English)
He is suing the Prime Minister for defamation and properly mentions that certain companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements, which is something he needs to prove in order for defamation to stick. He is not suing Mastercard.
Too lazy to look up the numbers but I think that the terminal velocity of human body in a free fall is pretty close to the speed of sound, like 4/5ths, even at lower altitudes. At high altitude this will be higher because of less drag which will also be affected by the jumper positioning his body in a way to minimize drag. So it is possible, I guess.
Until their neighbors declared that, due to their majority on the local School Board, evolution, history, a large chunk of geology, and set theory will no longer be taught. And all children will have a compulsory christian values class.....And if you have a problem with it you are free to set up a completely separate school system on your own.
That doesn't make sense. Having a School Board assumes a public school system, which means that creationism or 'compulsory christian values' cannot be taught (establishment clause). Not having a public school system means private schools which currently exist and can teach whatever they want, and yet for the most part teach proper science and not creationism, So your idea that the moment government steps out of something it will all immediately be taken over by religious nuts is unjustified.
Now that many college graduates have no hope of ever paying back their loans
Most of of us have more interesting problems to worry about than a bunch of brats who borrowed and partied away $100K while getting a useless degree in fine arts or something and now don't want to pay it back and their parents who neglected to tell them that the world does not owe them a living.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately he did, which is why he has a regular column in NYT. However his articles have nothing to do with his field and everything to do with promoting his particular political ideology.
Please don't link to Paul Krugman's articles anymore. The man admits that he is a political activist first and economist distant second.
Thanks!
The entire discussion about crazed killers is irrational and emotional. 55 people/year on average get killed in random mass shootings, and that number hasn't gone up since the 90s despite the impression you might get from the media. More people get killed by lightning each year.
Easier said than done. There are many, many people who match the same symptoms and most of them are not about to start shooting people.
I meant US: 400 per 100K residents
Hate to reply to AC but UK has the highest violent crime rate of any developed country and it went UP, not down after the ban. Just google 'violent crime uk'. It is almost 5 times higher than the US:
UK: ~2000 cases of violent crime per 100K resident, US: ~500 cases per 100K residents.
Violent crime in the UK dramatically increased after guns were banned. That's just a fact. It is the highest of any 1st world country. It is much higher than in the USA in every category except homicides. And homicides are counted differently, with FBI counting wider range of crimes as homicides than UK police. The homicides were much lower than in the USA, before and after that ban, that didn't get affected at all by the gun ban. All the ban did in the UK was to put law abiding citizens at mercy of criminals and then try to have police handle everything with essentially implementing a police state with cameras on every corner and it didn't work.
As per SCOTUS decision in Dick Heller case, as well as per common sense reading of the constitution, one of the primary reasons for gun ownership in the USA is self defense. So there goes your requirement to keep guns locked and ammo separate. It will never happen because it defeats one of the primary purposes of owning a gun.
Ok so lets see how much sense would an "assault" (an actual assault gun is full-auto, which is already banned, but whatever) gun ban make.
- The largest number of deaths by gun by far are suicides - ban makes no difference
- Second larges are guns used illegally by felons - ban makes no difference
- Third largest are guns used by police or citizens in legitimate self-defense - ban makes no difference
- The number of cases of legally held guns being used in committing a murder is relatively small. However, even the then the gun used in over 99.9% of the cases is not an "assault" gun, usually its a handgun - assault weapon ban makes no difference
- The actual shootings by an "assault" gun are extremely rare. But even then, the actually proposed return to Clinton's restrictions on magazine capacity and some other features of those guns would have made NO DIFFERENCE. He could have changed the mag slightly more often, or he could have used a handgun.
So the answer, obvious from the beginning, is that a lot of time and money will be spent in passing an extremely complex piece of legislation that will throw the US gun industry into a tailspin and cause loses of millions of dollars and many jobs, while making ZERO DIFFERENCE in making anybody safer.
Will this stop Obama from proceeding? Of course not. It is not about safety, it is about polls.
Commies blocking commies. It's a win win.
Let's face it - the reason this story even became national news was to push a gun control agenda, and to increase the black turnout for Obama in November. FTFY
Let's not forget this event happened several months before it was mysteriously chosen, out of hundreds of other homicide cases, to be dragged out into the national spotlight by the media, complete with misleading and inflammatory pictures and storyline.
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Why are the red states the ones that get more from the government than they give?
That is a meaningless question. The fact is that on the whole, Republican voters pay more in taxes, Democrat voters pay less and receive more. Even in the blue states the most productive people tend to vote Republican? Look at the demographic breakdown in the polls and even in California the college educated, small business owners, mid to higher income are overwhelmingly Republican voters. Low income, low education, young people and minorities (but in particular low income minorities - high income are also Republican) are the Democrat voters and they are not producing the money that goes to the red states.
Maybe then someone will actually decide that prosecuting consensual crimes like this isn't generally worth the risk.
That's not what would happen. What would happen is that other "important" people who happen to be political or otherwise enemies of those on the list would attack them for their own advantage while secretly thanking God that their own favorite prostitute wasn't the one raided.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion.
Absolutely false, and incredibly naive. I fully understand science and I am not the slightest bit "anti-religion". I don't believe that a God exist but that does not make me anti-religion. Your mistake is to think of beliefs as being about the truth, rather than about what works. The fact that every single society in the history of human race was based on religion should make a science guy like you at least consider a possibility that it has a strong evolutionary advantages and that it shouldn't be dismissed so callously, not least because the evidence is that as soon as you kill one religion another one (potentially a lot worse than what we have now) will spring up. Once you understand the pitifully small role that reason (as compared to memes) plays in 'thinking' of humans, yes, including you, and the complexity of a society then you will understand that trying to base it on reason (rather than on fixed commands from 'above') is naive and dangerous.
California is spending money to keep jobs in-state.
They can keep jobs in state by relaxing ridiculous regulation. California is number one in the nation in term of losing jobs and productive people in the last few years and the main cause is the overbearing business regulation and taxes. A 10 million grant to a specific hand picked oh so green and wonderful company isn't going to make a slightest bit of difference. In any case, as soon as Tesla becomes a mature auto maker instead of a novelty company they will move their manufacturing where its cheaper. How else will they compete with Toyota, Nissan etc, not to mention the incoming horde of Chinese car companies?
And good riddance to one of the most overpriced and inefficient NASA programs and hello to the age of private space exploration. In 2011 money, the total cost of the space shuttle program was $190 billion (or $1.5 billion per launch) and let's face it, it wasn't worth it.
Iraq Regime change policy was adopted under Clinton in 1998. Look up Iraq Liberation Act.
And as Dr. Robert Lefkowitz is BxSci class of 59, this is the 8th Nobel won by one of their Grads (the other 7 are in Physics), Not bad for one High school - more than all of Australia
And (except for the bogus peace prize) twice as many as all of the world's Muslims.
I should mention that I was only speaking of the law as it stands. I happen to disagree with defamation laws in general and even more so when the law suit is brought by an alleged champion of unlimited free speech but that's a different issue.
Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.
True but irrelevant.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them." (Australian defamation law is basically the same as English)
He is suing the Prime Minister for defamation and properly mentions that certain companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements, which is something he needs to prove in order for defamation to stick. He is not suing Mastercard.
Too lazy to look up the numbers but I think that the terminal velocity of human body in a free fall is pretty close to the speed of sound, like 4/5ths, even at lower altitudes. At high altitude this will be higher because of less drag which will also be affected by the jumper positioning his body in a way to minimize drag. So it is possible, I guess.
Until their neighbors declared that, due to their majority on the local School Board, evolution, history, a large chunk of geology, and set theory will no longer be taught. And all children will have a compulsory christian values class. ....And if you have a problem with it you are free to set up a completely separate school system on your own.
That doesn't make sense. Having a School Board assumes a public school system, which means that creationism or 'compulsory christian values' cannot be taught (establishment clause). Not having a public school system means private schools which currently exist and can teach whatever they want, and yet for the most part teach proper science and not creationism, So your idea that the moment government steps out of something it will all immediately be taken over by religious nuts is unjustified.
Now that many college graduates have no hope of ever paying back their loans
Most of of us have more interesting problems to worry about than a bunch of brats who borrowed and partied away $100K while getting a useless degree in fine arts or something and now don't want to pay it back and their parents who neglected to tell them that the world does not owe them a living.
Jobs will go where the labor cost is lower. Not complicated.