There exists the possibility a meteor might not decelerate to terminal velocity, if a largish meteorite was at the correct angle and had a high velocity... A fragment of meteor could retain a surprising amount of velocity. Plus, a pea-sized bullet going faster than sound makes a pretty good sonic report on its own, so that may explain the sound. However, even a.30caliber bullet traveling at 3,000 feet/s isn't going to leave a foot wide crater in dirt.
It would have had to be going very, very fast (certainly faster than any man made projectile) to have that kind of energy... It may have been like a small explosion on impact. It would be going so fast, though that he probably wouldn't have seen it. And he wouldn't have felt pain before the explosion (not enough time for the pain signals to reach the brain).
OK, the US has a lot of street gangs dealing drugs (which is why Canada has guns, but less crime). The gangs only form because they are scary, and they are scary because they have guns. Canada doesn't have street gangs because it is too damn cold to stand in a street corner selling crack, but generally speaking, guns create street gangs, who cause violent crimes.
Gangs don't form because they *poof* have guns. Gangs form because weak individuals and those with poor self-esteem are made stronger when they run with a gang. Strength in numbers, and all. Normally tame dogs aren't unknown to go on a rampage, when they join together in a pack. It's the same thing with humans, and mob mentality. Look at Japan, they have serious gun control, but that doesn't stop the bosozoku (kind of a queer version of an American motorcycle gang) from menacing people.
The stronger and more well connected Yakuza syndicates, despite the gun control are known to be armed, because of their connections to the international crime rings. They smuggle drugs into places, and arms out--the US included. And because of Japans unwillingness to arm its officers, all but the elite SWAT style teams are outgunned--and they know it. This has allowed them to become a endemic force, and they're trying to go mainstream by taking over weak corporations, "buying" shares from unwilling shareholders. And when they have 51% of the rights, they simply barge into a corporate meeting and take over. Sure, Japan might have a low occurrence of violent crime, but I'm sure it's higher than is commonly believed. This is something which the Japanese ***DO NOT*** want to talk about. They sure are exporting the crime though--they own most of the crystal-meth trade in Hawaii.
Street gangs have been around as long as time itself, in one form or another. Guns don't create gangs, that much should be obvious to anyone. A gang will simply want to use the best tools for their purposes, and once a gang starts getting guns there's an arms race--the rest pretty much have to try to do so as well. You don't show up to a gun fight with a knife, after all.// OT rant.
On topic: Ballmer can bend over and take the entirety of Microsoft up that tight ass of his, for all I care.
Scientolology has long likened themselves to Jews under Nazi persecution. This is nothing new, decades old even. I think it most likely came about the very first time some critic started investigating them. It is sickening, but so again, that adjective applies to most of their activities.
The silly thing is, of course: their own efforts to control public perception of their cult have done more to harm its public perception than any other single thing possibly could. Without the attacking of critics, etc. they'd simply be considered a strange but harmless UFO cult. Funny how that works--it seems like most cults have some kind of self-destruct gene.
The fact that there were Jews, Romans, and Crucifixes says NOTHING about the divine/non-divine status of Jesus nor does it speak to the claim of any supernatural activity--anymore than the fact that there was a real Joseph Smith, a New York state, and caves says anything about whether or not Joseph Smith received a divine revelation from an angel in one of those caves.
I wasn't arguing that it did. Indeed, there were many documented proclaimed messiahs and minor profits before, during and after the life of Jesus of Nazareth. And, some people didn't believe him to be all he is made to be, otherwise Jews would be Catholics today. On the other hand, through the obscurity of 2000 years of time really, there isn't much compelling evidence which would allow us conclude that he either was, or was not all he is made out to be. If you want to argue this point, that's fine, but it's not the point I'm interested in...
And that is, 1) 1830 isn't so long ago for that many things to have been forgotten. 2) "glass-looking" (basically what Smith claimed to do with not one but two times with a never seen ethereal, and solid golden manuscript, and whereby he arrived at two completely different "translations") was a common scam during the period -- "fortune tellers" told people where to go dig for money and gold, for a fee. 3) he was arrested for scamming someone in said fashion in 1826, before 1830 when the latter day movement was gaining steam.
It's not difficult to reach the conclusion: he's a documented liar, and scammer. How likely is it, then that he is some divine profit, assuming you believe there can be such things?
I'm sure the framerate is just fine. The problem is: the camera isn't in synced with the display's scan rate, and 2) lasers can turn on and off (go from full off to full on) a HELL of a lot faster than anything on usual display devices. (phosphors in a CRT unload their photons over a longer period of time, LCDs switch slower, etc) I imagine the real scan rate is actually has to be higher than 75 hz, just because of that phenomena, either that or they have to have some sort of dwell state built into the display engine... Flicker sensitive people would have a hell of a time at just 60 hz.
I think this is very exciting. I can't wait for the day they integrate something like this into a standard CRT (or greater) size rear projection monitor... If they do their part right, it'll blow everything else away in both color accuracy and pixel density. It's great that they've managed to make this into a pocket projector, but I think it'll have as many, if not more applications in traditional devices. I think that's the real bread and butter market for this.
I will agree with you only to the extent that I think *ALL* religions are pretty much equally stupid. Believing Joseph Smith recieved a angelic revelation is no stupider than believing Mohommad or Abraham received a similar revelation--and all those pale in comparison to the general belief that a first-century illiterate Hebrew peasant who happened to be crucified by the Romans as an insurgent was somehow the human incarnation of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.
Except plenty of probable cause exists, due to evidence and documentation, which would indicate Smith probably wasn't on the up and up. With Christianity, people at least know there were Jews, Romans and Crucifixes.
The Athiests don't have a record any better than the Theists on that front. Unless you want to ignore how much fun it was to be religious in Russia during their crazy years. Plenty other examples, that is just the first that comes to mind.
I don't consider those people atheists (whether in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, etc). That might have been something they said they were, but to me, they were in a cult of their own, complete with an array of deity status "super men"--I believe this to be the case, even if they didn't realize it.
The problem with illicit amphetamines is: how the fuck do you know, unless it comes from an extremely reputable source: a) its concentration b) what else is in it (harmful impurities)
Unless it's made by a pharmaceutical lab, I wouldn't touch it for any reason.
I rarely drink a soft drink, but when I do, it's always Coke from Mexico--and always with a plate of food at my favorite Mexican restaurant. There's nothing quite like it. Like the way it used to be. Coke can take its "Coke Classic", and shove a can of it sideways up their collective asses.
Actually, because of it, I've been wanting to try that Pepsi thing they've been hyping recently--the one with real sugar. Maybe, just maybe, they're starting to get it. Probably not--but it's a spark of hope.
Thailand has an interesting culture/leadership (and by interesting, I mean crazy).
Let's ban youtube because some random put a video there, in which the king had shoes on his head. Let's also ban gaming sites because some twerp jumped off a roof. But, let's ignore if not support at a federal level, the real problems (child prostitution, human trafficking might be a good place to start)
Sure, I realize the current government is a quasi-military clusterfuck, but really--it seems any kind of energy on their part could be better spent.
It's even worse than that. I'm Irish, Czech and Russian, at least (in addition to other alcohol loving races, undoubtedly, I know there's some German in there too). It's like ultimate trifecta of alcoholism is coursing through my veins.
By their powers combined, I am super drunk! Like a vampire that can walk in the day, I will use my very experienced liver to conquer the world!!! Eh, who am I kidding.
I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale
Actually, much like drug dealers, there's the street dealers, who act as a sort of clearing house for all types of illegally obtained guns. Those may come from so-called straw purchases (one person buys for another who is not qualified), guns obtained from thefts, and lastly, illegal transactions with licensed dealers. People are sometimes paid a fair sum to go out and buy guns to turn them over to a dealer.
When they're not in use or on their bodies, people really should lock their arms up in safes. That would take a big bite out of the amount of guns hitting the streets... And, if the agencies responsible for tracking and prosecuting people for making straw purchases did their jobs more effectively, that would probably have the most benefit.
If the laws on the books were simply enforced more rigidly, things would be better.
God damn, not this shit again. How do you tell people what they think tastes good and tastes bad? It's all up to the individual. I can't stand the taste of beer, any beer and I've tried my fair share, yet that's an absolutely huge industry so surely there are just a lot of people out there that just have bad taste right?
If you can taste the beer you're not drinking enough.
You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit.
The only verifiable metric available for this statistic is found in shootings where police are involved (that said, affirmative action hirelings are rarely known to achieve the acme of shooting proficiency), and yeah... They tend to spray bullets frantically all over the place. Heck, there's been a number of cops which have emptied their magazines before they even got on target (as they were drawing the gun, seriously.) It's said that most shootings involving civilians usually end with an average of six shots fired, (makes sense, a lot of people, criminals included, carry six shooters), and random people very rarely get hit either way.
The vast majority of shootings in the US are not justified by the law. Of course not. The majority of shootings (perhaps not vast majority, but at least 50%) are purposefully self inflicted, and self inflicted euthanasia is still illegal here. Thanks to the christians, of course. The criminal element will always get their hands on prohibited items. The more well connected, the better armed. Look at the Yakuza in Japan, criminals trying to be a legitimate business. I suppose that might be only slightly better than legitimate businesses trying to be criminals.
Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals?
I have faith in freedom, and the vast majority enjoy it for what it is. Criminals and other anti-socials are an aberration. Those types have it easier in population centers which outlaw guns, however. I'm not saying that's the only factor, of course... But it's hard to deny that the likes of places such as Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Detroit, historically, some of the places which are very much against law abiding citizens owning and carrying guns are also historically some of the most crime ridden.
Crime is a problem, and guns being used in crimes just hurts us all. There is no doubt and that, and it needs to be dealt with. The cat is out of the bag, however, and there's just no getting it back in, so it doesn't make sense to disarm law abiding citizens. The good thing is, crime is on the downfall over the last decade, and this despite, ahem, millions of millions of guns being manufactured, and most states adopting concealed carry laws.
I think it's arguable someone here knows what they're talking about. I've been shooting almost my entire life, I regularly teach other people how to use firearms responsibly, and have participated in getting pro-gun amendments signed into law. You've never even seen a gun by your own admission. Not trying to be a jerk, but, you know, but basically anyone with any experience here in the states is doing better than you on this point.
I've never had to shoot anyone, you're quite right, and I sincerely hope it forever stays just that way. Fortunately, that big gray organ in my skull helps me to avoid situations where I would ever need to draw a pistol. That said, should I ever need to, I'm confident I have and will continue prepare myself adequately.
If you ever find yourself in the US for any reason, you really aught to find a range, rent a gun, get some basic instruction and have a taste of freedom. It's cool and delicious, and it's in rare supply.
So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?
Holy shit, you're thick. I'm in favor of people defending themselves when there's an active threat. I don't care if they use knives, swords, clubs, rifles, pistols, phasers, ion cannons, or orbital bombardment, as long as it's used appropriately and responsibly.
That said, people make mistakes. That's a given. The margin for making a mistake when you're using a gun is a lot thinner than for other things, and the price for may also be higher, that's also a given. For example, should you shoot and miss, and hit an innocent third party, you're responsible for that errant bullet.
When people make mistakes, it's up to a court and a jury of their peers to determine the next appropriate step. People have been tried and convicted for using their tools at an inappropriate time, e.g. before there was a real threat, or after the threat has ended. People have and shot and killed robbers/attackers/rapists moments after the threat has ended. That's called murder. It's a thin like to walk.
Maybe it's not you, but some people, including some Christians, do think that it's not appropriate to kill someone attempting rape. It's a crime, that's "significantly less than killing someone" (as you say) in the eyes of the court. Obviously, I feel that's quite ridiculous, and I feel that the victim should ideally be be the judge, jury and executioner, just before she becomes a real victim. It just saves everyone a lot of trouble, and counseling a rape victim is harder than someone traumatized because they took a life.
Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable.
I can't fault you for ignorance in this area, because you're inexperienced, and what you do know probably comes from anecdote, movies and TV. In the old days before antibiotics, that may have been true, but it's less true today. Back then, you didn't want to get hit by anything. Clothing full of bacteria and other pathogens gets pushed into the wound channel, you get infected and you die--days or weeks later, unless your immune system could take care of it.
These days, with ambulances and antibiotics, if you don't get shot in a vital area (central nervous system, larger arteries, maybe the liver, etc.), your prognosis may not be as bad as you think. An individual's attitude has a larger impact on this than you imagine, also. Sheeple who are conditioned to believe that they'll keel over and when they get shot have a much better chance of doing just that--even if they got shot in a non vital area like a shoulder, they just GIVE UP. It happens all the time. People who are natural fighters live with greater frequency, all other things being equal. There have been guys filled with holes by a few cops, who didn't stop till they shoot 'em with shotgun slugs or buckshot. Hell, even if you shoot and destroy the heart, people on various drugs may have up to 15 seconds or so of active consciousness.
As to "shooting disable", there's no such thing in my book. When the adrenaline hits, frankly, even a well trained shooter will probably misses all together more than he hits. That's why you always aim for the center of mass, and you keep shooting till they go down. (Unless they're wearing body armor, then shoot for the face.) Like Teddy Roosevelt said, Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!
RE Christians: as a devout atheist (I suppose you thought since I love guns I must also love Jeebus), I have to say this: when have christians, as a whole, ever strictly followed Jesus' teachings? Also, I don't give a shit about god's for forgiveness for some thug, my main concern is the damage someone may do to my body, those of my family and friends, etc. If they're of the theological persuasion and they intend to hurt me or my loved ones, I'll be sure to arrange the meeting between them and their deity of choice.
On the topic of rape: would you have the opportunity to ask your attacker whether or not he has blood-borne or sexually transmitted pathogens? There is a reasonable fear of death of life altering infection by AIDS, Hepatitis, etc. should a rape attempt be successful.
First of all, nobody is thinking that...Unless they've been previously raped--in which case, I think that's a completely justified response against future attacks, or they're a vigilante (relatively few enough of those to ignore them for the sake of this conversation, however).
They're thinking, "I hope to God this tool will help protect me from that serial rapist/killer." I know, because I'm a certified instructor of the mandatory safety class in my state--an individual wishing to carry a concealed weapon must take at the very least a safety class given by a qualified person to be eligible. I interview my students, to get a better idea of some of the points I need to touch on during the class. Like I said, I see a marked increase in the number of females of all ages who seek to carry a gun during the time when a serial rapist is raping about town, and quite unlike men, women admit they're afraid.
This is, in fact a big point I teach in my class: you don't EVER shoot to kill someone. You shoot to STOP them from causing harm to you or someone else. More specifically, in most states, deadly force of ANY kind is JUSTIFIED when:
A) Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; B) Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Ever taken a karate class, or other kind of martial art? Well, you might be a deadly force in your own right. You better not use those learned skills at the wrong time. Just like Karate, however, handguns are *emergency defensive tools*. They're underpowered compared to a myriad of other weapons, and the compact versions often carried are more difficult to use than any other kind of firearm. This is why if you want to hunt someone down, you use a rifle, shotgun, bazooka or laser guided bombs.
That your attacker may be killed in any conflict is adjacent to the issue. You could trip him or use some kind of Taekwondo throw, so that he hits his head and dies. Different method, same potential result as using a firearm, right? His willingness to assault you removes any kind of right he has, while he continues, and gives you the right to use any kind of force, up to and possibly including deadly force, to stop him. Even if he's "only raping you", most rapists convincingly threaten the use of deadly force for non-compliance. A threat of deadly force, is often times just as justifiable, and how can it not be of he's also committing another felony?
If the attacker dies, one shouldn't feel bad about it. Hell, if one of my students comes back to me, and says that they defended their lives, or the nature if their bodies with the things I've taught them, I'll tell you how I'll feel. Proud. As a taxpayer, if I learn that nobody else will be victimized by a criminal, and that I don't have to pay to feed and house a violent criminal which attacked one of my students... I'll feel fucking elated.
The fact is, the right to defend oneself is THE basic inalienable Human Right. Period. Due to our nature as animals, the directive of self-preservation precludes all other human conceived natural rights. If you do not find that acceptable, it's time to be deprogrammed, because your mode of thinking is WRONG. You're one step away from becoming MUTTON, my little lamb. If that is the case, even Buddhist monks, the most peaceable and most reluctant to kill set of folks on this planet believe contrary to you.
If you do by chance self-preservation acceptable, but furthermore also believe that one shouldn't also a equip himself with the best and most useful tools available to him, to achieve the directive of self-preservation, you likewise need to reevaluate your potion.
Oh, on the whole, they're (violent crime) pretty rare here as well. And, in some people's minds, I'm quite sure that description (weapon wielding crazy) applies to me, due to certain *ahem* lifestyle choices. The difference is, of course, I'm not out to cause anyone harm, may be able to save someone else from harm when the time comes.
If you get out enough, chances are you'll see a violent crime in your lifetime. You'd be amazed at the number of guns and concealed carry licenses a string of rapes around a college campus can sell.
They only make things worse if criminals never need to fear retaliation whilst they freely use them. Of course they don't--and why should they? Even the bulk of law enforcement officers in the UK don't/can't carry firearms. They have to wait for special response, Authorized Firearms Officers, or fight 'em off with their truncheon or tazer. Maybe that will change, after a few cops get mobbed and killed.
The subjects are even worse off. Your government has no respect for an individual's right to protect himself, as if it were possible to subjugate natural animal instincts with laws. They're only too happy to take your teeth away, it seems. First it was the guns, now it's the knives, next it'll be nail filled clubs improvised from tree branches, then rocks, and sooner or later you'd think people would realize it's not possible to legislate cultural problems away.
I hear you can't carry ANYTHING for personal protection. Not a knife, not a baton, nothing. How about OC spray? For some reason, I'm doubtful of that as well. What is it now? Last I heard, only 4% of households own any kind of long gun, and handguns are banned. You're damned if you do and you might be damned if you don't. Perhaps you can get a guard dog, for when you're at home with the kiddos. Yeah, that aught to make at least some of the weapon wielding crazies stain their underwear.
I suppose a mastiff might not be a great comfort when you're being followed down an abandoned urban alley, and maybe then someone in a similar situation will pause to think that violent crime in the US is trending downward and vice versa in Britain. In the US, most states license law abiding individuals to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves, and many states also recognize an individual's right to carry a sidearm, license or no, right on their hip for all the world to see... I wonder why it is that career criminals now fear armed citizens more than they fear the police. Ho hum. Meanwhile, there are millions upon millions of arms in homes all across this country which didn't hurt anyone yesterday, nor today, nor will they ever.
I think it's only right to fear any government which fears your firearm.
Slashdot Mirror
There exists the possibility a meteor might not decelerate to terminal velocity, if a largish meteorite was at the correct angle and had a high velocity... A fragment of meteor could retain a surprising amount of velocity. Plus, a pea-sized bullet going faster than sound makes a pretty good sonic report on its own, so that may explain the sound. However, even a .30caliber bullet traveling at 3,000 feet/s isn't going to leave a foot wide crater in dirt.
It would have had to be going very, very fast (certainly faster than any man made projectile) to have that kind of energy... It may have been like a small explosion on impact. It would be going so fast, though that he probably wouldn't have seen it. And he wouldn't have felt pain before the explosion (not enough time for the pain signals to reach the brain).
OK, the US has a lot of street gangs dealing drugs (which is why Canada has guns, but less crime). The gangs only form because they are scary, and they are scary because they have guns. Canada doesn't have street gangs because it is too damn cold to stand in a street corner selling crack, but generally speaking, guns create street gangs, who cause violent crimes.
Gangs don't form because they *poof* have guns. Gangs form because weak individuals and those with poor self-esteem are made stronger when they run with a gang. Strength in numbers, and all. Normally tame dogs aren't unknown to go on a rampage, when they join together in a pack. It's the same thing with humans, and mob mentality. Look at Japan, they have serious gun control, but that doesn't stop the bosozoku (kind of a queer version of an American motorcycle gang) from menacing people.
The stronger and more well connected Yakuza syndicates, despite the gun control are known to be armed, because of their connections to the international crime rings. They smuggle drugs into places, and arms out--the US included. And because of Japans unwillingness to arm its officers, all but the elite SWAT style teams are outgunned--and they know it. This has allowed them to become a endemic force, and they're trying to go mainstream by taking over weak corporations, "buying" shares from unwilling shareholders. And when they have 51% of the rights, they simply barge into a corporate meeting and take over. Sure, Japan might have a low occurrence of violent crime, but I'm sure it's higher than is commonly believed. This is something which the Japanese ***DO NOT*** want to talk about. They sure are exporting the crime though--they own most of the crystal-meth trade in Hawaii.
Street gangs have been around as long as time itself, in one form or another. Guns don't create gangs, that much should be obvious to anyone. A gang will simply want to use the best tools for their purposes, and once a gang starts getting guns there's an arms race--the rest pretty much have to try to do so as well. You don't show up to a gun fight with a knife, after all. // OT rant.
On topic: Ballmer can bend over and take the entirety of Microsoft up that tight ass of his, for all I care.
Scientolology has long likened themselves to Jews under Nazi persecution. This is nothing new, decades old even. I think it most likely came about the very first time some critic started investigating them. It is sickening, but so again, that adjective applies to most of their activities.
The silly thing is, of course: their own efforts to control public perception of their cult have done more to harm its public perception than any other single thing possibly could. Without the attacking of critics, etc. they'd simply be considered a strange but harmless UFO cult. Funny how that works--it seems like most cults have some kind of self-destruct gene.
The fact that there were Jews, Romans, and Crucifixes says NOTHING about the divine/non-divine status of Jesus nor does it speak to the claim of any supernatural activity--anymore than the fact that there was a real Joseph Smith, a New York state, and caves says anything about whether or not Joseph Smith received a divine revelation from an angel in one of those caves.
I wasn't arguing that it did. Indeed, there were many documented proclaimed messiahs and minor profits before, during and after the life of Jesus of Nazareth. And, some people didn't believe him to be all he is made to be, otherwise Jews would be Catholics today. On the other hand, through the obscurity of 2000 years of time really, there isn't much compelling evidence which would allow us conclude that he either was, or was not all he is made out to be. If you want to argue this point, that's fine, but it's not the point I'm interested in...
And that is, 1) 1830 isn't so long ago for that many things to have been forgotten. 2) "glass-looking" (basically what Smith claimed to do with not one but two times with a never seen ethereal, and solid golden manuscript, and whereby he arrived at two completely different "translations") was a common scam during the period -- "fortune tellers" told people where to go dig for money and gold, for a fee. 3) he was arrested for scamming someone in said fashion in 1826, before 1830 when the latter day movement was gaining steam.
It's not difficult to reach the conclusion: he's a documented liar, and scammer. How likely is it, then that he is some divine profit, assuming you believe there can be such things?
it looks like the framerate might be terrible
I'm sure the framerate is just fine. The problem is: the camera isn't in synced with the display's scan rate, and 2) lasers can turn on and off (go from full off to full on) a HELL of a lot faster than anything on usual display devices. (phosphors in a CRT unload their photons over a longer period of time, LCDs switch slower, etc) I imagine the real scan rate is actually has to be higher than 75 hz, just because of that phenomena, either that or they have to have some sort of dwell state built into the display engine... Flicker sensitive people would have a hell of a time at just 60 hz.
I think this is very exciting. I can't wait for the day they integrate something like this into a standard CRT (or greater) size rear projection monitor... If they do their part right, it'll blow everything else away in both color accuracy and pixel density. It's great that they've managed to make this into a pocket projector, but I think it'll have as many, if not more applications in traditional devices. I think that's the real bread and butter market for this.
I will agree with you only to the extent that I think *ALL* religions are pretty much equally stupid. Believing Joseph Smith recieved a angelic revelation is no stupider than believing Mohommad or Abraham received a similar revelation--and all those pale in comparison to the general belief that a first-century illiterate Hebrew peasant who happened to be crucified by the Romans as an insurgent was somehow the human incarnation of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.
Except plenty of probable cause exists, due to evidence and documentation, which would indicate Smith probably wasn't on the up and up. With Christianity, people at least know there were Jews, Romans and Crucifixes.
With Scientology, you'll be fucked 100% of the time.
To all the horny virgin geeks round here, that sounds like a plus point!
Let's be honest, it's probably a bit cheaper to rent a classy hooker whenever the urge strikes, than it is to be a scientologist. :)
The Athiests don't have a record any better than the Theists on that front. Unless you want to ignore how much fun it was to be religious in Russia during their crazy years. Plenty other examples, that is just the first that comes to mind.
I don't consider those people atheists (whether in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, etc). That might have been something they said they were, but to me, they were in a cult of their own, complete with an array of deity status "super men"--I believe this to be the case, even if they didn't realize it.
How about we also end the drug and prostitution ban? Just saying.
Fine by me, so long as the machine gun bans are also lifted.
The problem with illicit amphetamines is: how the fuck do you know, unless it comes from an extremely reputable source: a) its concentration b) what else is in it (harmful impurities)
Unless it's made by a pharmaceutical lab, I wouldn't touch it for any reason.
Gotta agree there.
I rarely drink a soft drink, but when I do, it's always Coke from Mexico--and always with a plate of food at my favorite Mexican restaurant. There's nothing quite like it. Like the way it used to be. Coke can take its "Coke Classic", and shove a can of it sideways up their collective asses.
Actually, because of it, I've been wanting to try that Pepsi thing they've been hyping recently--the one with real sugar. Maybe, just maybe, they're starting to get it. Probably not--but it's a spark of hope.
Scientology is tax shelter.
If only that was all scientology is.
Thailand has an interesting culture/leadership (and by interesting, I mean crazy).
Let's ban youtube because some random put a video there, in which the king had shoes on his head. Let's also ban gaming sites because some twerp jumped off a roof. But, let's ignore if not support at a federal level, the real problems (child prostitution, human trafficking might be a good place to start)
Sure, I realize the current government is a quasi-military clusterfuck, but really--it seems any kind of energy on their part could be better spent.
That sound you hear is 16 armed TSA officers bursting in the bathroom.
They would never trust TSA "agents" with guns. I know two, and they'd both shoot themselves within the first hour.
actually you dont have the right to put bear traps. Its against the law to 'booby-trap' your home in any way.
Remember kiddies, It's not illegal if they can't escape, can't place a cell phone call and nobody knows which home they went to "investigate".
It's even worse than that. I'm Irish, Czech and Russian, at least (in addition to other alcohol loving races, undoubtedly, I know there's some German in there too). It's like ultimate trifecta of alcoholism is coursing through my veins.
By their powers combined, I am super drunk! Like a vampire that can walk in the day, I will use my very experienced liver to conquer the world!!! Eh, who am I kidding.
I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale
Actually, much like drug dealers, there's the street dealers, who act as a sort of clearing house for all types of illegally obtained guns. Those may come from so-called straw purchases (one person buys for another who is not qualified), guns obtained from thefts, and lastly, illegal transactions with licensed dealers. People are sometimes paid a fair sum to go out and buy guns to turn them over to a dealer.
When they're not in use or on their bodies, people really should lock their arms up in safes. That would take a big bite out of the amount of guns hitting the streets... And, if the agencies responsible for tracking and prosecuting people for making straw purchases did their jobs more effectively, that would probably have the most benefit.
If the laws on the books were simply enforced more rigidly, things would be better.
It has been fun however. See ya around.
God damn, not this shit again. How do you tell people what they think tastes good and tastes bad? It's all up to the individual. I can't stand the taste of beer, any beer and I've tried my fair share, yet that's an absolutely huge industry so surely there are just a lot of people out there that just have bad taste right?
If you can taste the beer you're not drinking enough.
You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit.
The only verifiable metric available for this statistic is found in shootings where police are involved (that said, affirmative action hirelings are rarely known to achieve the acme of shooting proficiency), and yeah... They tend to spray bullets frantically all over the place. Heck, there's been a number of cops which have emptied their magazines before they even got on target (as they were drawing the gun, seriously.) It's said that most shootings involving civilians usually end with an average of six shots fired, (makes sense, a lot of people, criminals included, carry six shooters), and random people very rarely get hit either way.
The vast majority of shootings in the US are not justified by the law.
Of course not. The majority of shootings (perhaps not vast majority, but at least 50%) are purposefully self inflicted, and self inflicted euthanasia is still illegal here. Thanks to the christians, of course. The criminal element will always get their hands on prohibited items. The more well connected, the better armed. Look at the Yakuza in Japan, criminals trying to be a legitimate business. I suppose that might be only slightly better than legitimate businesses trying to be criminals.
Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals?
I have faith in freedom, and the vast majority enjoy it for what it is. Criminals and other anti-socials are an aberration. Those types have it easier in population centers which outlaw guns, however. I'm not saying that's the only factor, of course... But it's hard to deny that the likes of places such as Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Detroit, historically, some of the places which are very much against law abiding citizens owning and carrying guns are also historically some of the most crime ridden.
Crime is a problem, and guns being used in crimes just hurts us all. There is no doubt and that, and it needs to be dealt with. The cat is out of the bag, however, and there's just no getting it back in, so it doesn't make sense to disarm law abiding citizens. The good thing is, crime is on the downfall over the last decade, and this despite, ahem, millions of millions of guns being manufactured, and most states adopting concealed carry laws.
I think it's arguable someone here knows what they're talking about. I've been shooting almost my entire life, I regularly teach other people how to use firearms responsibly, and have participated in getting pro-gun amendments signed into law. You've never even seen a gun by your own admission. Not trying to be a jerk, but, you know, but basically anyone with any experience here in the states is doing better than you on this point.
I've never had to shoot anyone, you're quite right, and I sincerely hope it forever stays just that way. Fortunately, that big gray organ in my skull helps me to avoid situations where I would ever need to draw a pistol. That said, should I ever need to, I'm confident I have and will continue prepare myself adequately.
If you ever find yourself in the US for any reason, you really aught to find a range, rent a gun, get some basic instruction and have a taste of freedom. It's cool and delicious, and it's in rare supply.
So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?
Holy shit, you're thick. I'm in favor of people defending themselves when there's an active threat. I don't care if they use knives, swords, clubs, rifles, pistols, phasers, ion cannons, or orbital bombardment, as long as it's used appropriately and responsibly.
That said, people make mistakes. That's a given. The margin for making a mistake when you're using a gun is a lot thinner than for other things, and the price for may also be higher, that's also a given. For example, should you shoot and miss, and hit an innocent third party, you're responsible for that errant bullet.
When people make mistakes, it's up to a court and a jury of their peers to determine the next appropriate step. People have been tried and convicted for using their tools at an inappropriate time, e.g. before there was a real threat, or after the threat has ended. People have and shot and killed robbers/attackers/rapists moments after the threat has ended. That's called murder. It's a thin like to walk.
Maybe it's not you, but some people, including some Christians, do think that it's not appropriate to kill someone attempting rape. It's a crime, that's "significantly less than killing someone" (as you say) in the eyes of the court. Obviously, I feel that's quite ridiculous, and I feel that the victim should ideally be be the judge, jury and executioner, just before she becomes a real victim. It just saves everyone a lot of trouble, and counseling a rape victim is harder than someone traumatized because they took a life.
Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable.
I can't fault you for ignorance in this area, because you're inexperienced, and what you do know probably comes from anecdote, movies and TV. In the old days before antibiotics, that may have been true, but it's less true today. Back then, you didn't want to get hit by anything. Clothing full of bacteria and other pathogens gets pushed into the wound channel, you get infected and you die--days or weeks later, unless your immune system could take care of it.
These days, with ambulances and antibiotics, if you don't get shot in a vital area (central nervous system, larger arteries, maybe the liver, etc.), your prognosis may not be as bad as you think. An individual's attitude has a larger impact on this than you imagine, also. Sheeple who are conditioned to believe that they'll keel over and when they get shot have a much better chance of doing just that--even if they got shot in a non vital area like a shoulder, they just GIVE UP. It happens all the time. People who are natural fighters live with greater frequency, all other things being equal. There have been guys filled with holes by a few cops, who didn't stop till they shoot 'em with shotgun slugs or buckshot. Hell, even if you shoot and destroy the heart, people on various drugs may have up to 15 seconds or so of active consciousness.
As to "shooting disable", there's no such thing in my book. When the adrenaline hits, frankly, even a well trained shooter will probably misses all together more than he hits. That's why you always aim for the center of mass, and you keep shooting till they go down. (Unless they're wearing body armor, then shoot for the face.) Like Teddy Roosevelt said, Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!
RE Christians: as a devout atheist (I suppose you thought since I love guns I must also love Jeebus), I have to say this: when have christians, as a whole, ever strictly followed Jesus' teachings? Also, I don't give a shit about god's for forgiveness for some thug, my main concern is the damage someone may do to my body, those of my family and friends, etc. If they're of the theological persuasion and they intend to hurt me or my loved ones, I'll be sure to arrange the meeting between them and their deity of choice.
On the topic of rape: would you have the opportunity to ask your attacker whether or not he has blood-borne or sexually transmitted pathogens? There is a reasonable fear of death of life altering infection by AIDS, Hepatitis, etc. should a rape attempt be successful.
First of all, nobody is thinking that...Unless they've been previously raped--in which case, I think that's a completely justified response against future attacks, or they're a vigilante (relatively few enough of those to ignore them for the sake of this conversation, however).
They're thinking, "I hope to God this tool will help protect me from that serial rapist/killer." I know, because I'm a certified instructor of the mandatory safety class in my state--an individual wishing to carry a concealed weapon must take at the very least a safety class given by a qualified person to be eligible. I interview my students, to get a better idea of some of the points I need to touch on during the class. Like I said, I see a marked increase in the number of females of all ages who seek to carry a gun during the time when a serial rapist is raping about town, and quite unlike men, women admit they're afraid.
This is, in fact a big point I teach in my class: you don't EVER shoot to kill someone. You shoot to STOP them from causing harm to you or someone else. More specifically, in most states, deadly force of ANY kind is JUSTIFIED when:
A) Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
B) Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Ever taken a karate class, or other kind of martial art? Well, you might be a deadly force in your own right. You better not use those learned skills at the wrong time. Just like Karate, however, handguns are *emergency defensive tools*. They're underpowered compared to a myriad of other weapons, and the compact versions often carried are more difficult to use than any other kind of firearm. This is why if you want to hunt someone down, you use a rifle, shotgun, bazooka or laser guided bombs.
That your attacker may be killed in any conflict is adjacent to the issue. You could trip him or use some kind of Taekwondo throw, so that he hits his head and dies. Different method, same potential result as using a firearm, right? His willingness to assault you removes any kind of right he has, while he continues, and gives you the right to use any kind of force, up to and possibly including deadly force, to stop him. Even if he's "only raping you", most rapists convincingly threaten the use of deadly force for non-compliance. A threat of deadly force, is often times just as justifiable, and how can it not be of he's also committing another felony?
If the attacker dies, one shouldn't feel bad about it. Hell, if one of my students comes back to me, and says that they defended their lives, or the nature if their bodies with the things I've taught them, I'll tell you how I'll feel. Proud. As a taxpayer, if I learn that nobody else will be victimized by a criminal, and that I don't have to pay to feed and house a violent criminal which attacked one of my students... I'll feel fucking elated.
The fact is, the right to defend oneself is THE basic inalienable Human Right. Period. Due to our nature as animals, the directive of self-preservation precludes all other human conceived natural rights. If you do not find that acceptable, it's time to be deprogrammed, because your mode of thinking is WRONG. You're one step away from becoming MUTTON, my little lamb. If that is the case, even Buddhist monks, the most peaceable and most reluctant to kill set of folks on this planet believe contrary to you.
If you do by chance self-preservation acceptable, but furthermore also believe that one shouldn't also a equip himself with the best and most useful tools available to him, to achieve the directive of self-preservation, you likewise need to reevaluate your potion.
Oh, on the whole, they're (violent crime) pretty rare here as well. And, in some people's minds, I'm quite sure that description (weapon wielding crazy) applies to me, due to certain *ahem* lifestyle choices. The difference is, of course, I'm not out to cause anyone harm, may be able to save someone else from harm when the time comes.
If you get out enough, chances are you'll see a violent crime in your lifetime. You'd be amazed at the number of guns and concealed carry licenses a string of rapes around a college campus can sell.
They only make things worse if criminals never need to fear retaliation whilst they freely use them. Of course they don't--and why should they? Even the bulk of law enforcement officers in the UK don't/can't carry firearms. They have to wait for special response, Authorized Firearms Officers, or fight 'em off with their truncheon or tazer. Maybe that will change, after a few cops get mobbed and killed.
The subjects are even worse off. Your government has no respect for an individual's right to protect himself, as if it were possible to subjugate natural animal instincts with laws. They're only too happy to take your teeth away, it seems. First it was the guns, now it's the knives, next it'll be nail filled clubs improvised from tree branches, then rocks, and sooner or later you'd think people would realize it's not possible to legislate cultural problems away.
I hear you can't carry ANYTHING for personal protection. Not a knife, not a baton, nothing. How about OC spray? For some reason, I'm doubtful of that as well. What is it now? Last I heard, only 4% of households own any kind of long gun, and handguns are banned. You're damned if you do and you might be damned if you don't. Perhaps you can get a guard dog, for when you're at home with the kiddos. Yeah, that aught to make at least some of the weapon wielding crazies stain their underwear.
I suppose a mastiff might not be a great comfort when you're being followed down an abandoned urban alley, and maybe then someone in a similar situation will pause to think that violent crime in the US is trending downward and vice versa in Britain. In the US, most states license law abiding individuals to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves, and many states also recognize an individual's right to carry a sidearm, license or no, right on their hip for all the world to see... I wonder why it is that career criminals now fear armed citizens more than they fear the police. Ho hum. Meanwhile, there are millions upon millions of arms in homes all across this country which didn't hurt anyone yesterday, nor today, nor will they ever.
I think it's only right to fear any government which fears your firearm.