Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Come on, stem cells, work your astounding scientific nonsense! Philip J. Fry: Fetal stem cells? Aren't those controversial? Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: In your time, yes. But nowadays... shut up! Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from healthy adults whom I've killed for their stem cells.
"There are indeed statistics on such crimes." I can't find any actual study. Citation? or is are you just making an assumption and then say look it up because you don't actually know of any?
"which numerous studies have shown remain as numerous when guns are banned"
That's a lie. Hear is a clue: Most suicide are spontaneous. literally, most people who decide to kill them selves do so when the right opportunity presents itself at the right moment... mostly on Wednesday.
Creepy, isn't it?
Example: A long time ago, the favorite way for someone to kill them selves was with Coal Gas. When Britain switched from Coal Gas to a gas that wouldn't kill you, suicide rates drop buy about 30%..and didn't return.
When a research tracked down what happened to 500 people that tried to commit suicide, but where stropped by police, only 6% went on to commit suicide.
There are many studies on this .
So having an easy and mostly painless way to kill yourself in the home increases suicides. I know, it's fucking weird, counter intuitive and unnerving. But studies bear it out.
I mean. we are talking about average people. People who would have said earlier in the day the would never think to kill themselves, then attempt suicide.
"British gun crime went up after handguns were banned." hmm. It's slight more complicated. The increase seems to have been a normal rising and falling in a longer trend. IT's not like the made it illegal and magically removed the guns. So, does it regress to the mean? is the mean trending up or down? Also bear in mind that the way the take statics changes. When using old,(pre 2001) method of data collecting, gun violence is trending down. Which is what you would expect if gun control does reduce crimes. The redefined what light means. Pre 2005 slight mean an injury not requiring a hospital stay. In 2005 it was change so that even being threatened with a gun was considered a 'slight injury'. So you can see why the numbers would increase.
My bias is towards good data and a good policy supported by the data. The data actual shows a decrease in gun violence overall when guns are banned.
You need to understand how to look at data, and understand that the definitions of what data is collected can be changed and impact the numbers. so when A simpleton looks at the data they just see 'rise in gun violence' and concludes banning is bad. A wise person see a jump in statistics and look at the data and how is was collected and then draws there opinion.
Please be wise.
Interesting note, I want to look up the last year to add it to an overall trend, and everyplace I went to the reported an increase report the raw numbers, not per capita.
" tens of thousands of lives are saved by guns every year." that's quite a jump. The study shows nothing of the sort. The criminals weren't there to kill anyone. Please don't conflate someone stealing your TV with someone who will kill you to take your TV.
Can you site the study? because I can't find any study at the CDC to backs what you claims it says.
So I suspect you got an incorrect piece of information from some source(echo chamber) and haven't actual read any such study your self.
You know nothing about crime, criminals, or situation where gun shots are fired.
Most criminals don't think that far ahead. Most shooting aren't planned Few, if any, will have the means to clone a firing pin. The steps to get around the micro-stamping are hard to conceal. Micro-stamping is good protection for the legal owner that has his gun stolen.
IS it perfect? no. Is it good? yes. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
What we have here is people who just want to kill any law dealing with guns without actually thinking about it.
The wise move for the NRA would be to back this. It doesn't stifle ownership, it can protect owners, and it can help stop people who use there firearms in a crime.
Incorrect. I am familiar with the letters and context of said letters. IT was about having the cheapest way to have an army. The context of personal gun ownership of that time is to have people they could call to arms because they couldn't afford a standing army. That was because the only way they could do that would be to house military personal with private citizens; which there experience showed them was very, very, bad. Hence specifically not allowing it.
A person cherry picking quotes is not a work of "Constitutional scholars".
He also doesn't seem to understand the constitution wasn't just a written document that was whipped up. Different parts where debated over, and added and not in the order one reads it. Document like that are not fictional stories written in order to tell a story.
So you have to take the debates into account when thinking about specific amendment wording. To do otherwise is, at best, ignorant.
Another point that seems to get missed is that 'Bear' doesn't means 'carry'. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. In fact, a literal period interpretation would mean hand guns wouldn't be included.
"This was an innovation of the Reagan Administration, along with peacetime budget deficits, astrologers in the White House and the $1trillion "Star Wars" missile defense system. Interesting, that early 1980s seems to have been some sort of turning point, after which American started a rapid decline. I don't know if there is any connection, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess."
Absolutely correct. Reagan is when the republican organization started making active decisions for the Office. It was also when the 'Religious right' started gain a lot of influence.
Too bad liberal gun ownership laws would not have stopped either of your examples.
So guns are useful only when doing illegal activities? You might want to think about a different example, because frankly I have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
I disagree. I have seen kids learn a lot, and develop a lot using a laptop. even more with a tablet.
If you think all the internet is just porn Google and Wikipedia, then you are a close minded fool.
There are a lot of great resources for learning and exploring. Khan academy alone can make it worth while.
The IT level of the person education is a byproduct of education not having enough money to higher qualified people. He's probably making 15 bucks an hour.
It can be a good idea, depending on implementation. I would LOVE to see an open system of online textbooks. You are going to hate this but, I would love to see the Dept. of Education take money from NCLB an put int into an online textbook system available to all schools. It would save the schools systems, and taxpayers, a shit ton of money. Done properly, it could be done in a way where children who are excelling can move on to the next ares of a subject.
" anything but the cheapest equipment is insane. " err.. no. Of course a mac AIR would be stupid, but there are other factor beside the machine cost. Easy of set up, easy of crating a new image, while they may be broke, they should still try to get reasonable tough on, and of course price. You need to balance that. A table device would be better then a laptop. You will need a cover, but they are the best solution in all the other factors.
"Is it any wonder test scores are stagnant since the 1950s?" Since they adjust the tests, they should be stagnant. They real question is, are the questions moving up or down. Is the math on thetests harder? the same? easier?
"It really is time to make the cost of education the responsiblity of just those with school age children." no. Everyone benefits from an educated society. The higher the education of the society, the lower the crime. The higher the education, more industry and jobs. Higher education, the more solutions to problem are discovered. If you never have kids, you still benefit fro a public school system. It's called society, and it's what we use to build civilization, you might want to look into it.
" That would rapidly put an end to the wastefulness and general idiocy of the school systems." How many school budgets have you read? how many analysis of those budget? what's that? none? well then fuck you.
"nd that's aerial surveillance" and? The EPA uses them to monitor waster dumping in remote agencies, they are use to patrol military bases, remote missle silos, and probabl a 1000 other uses.
Using a drone to monitor anyone not actually involved in illegal activities would be the stupidest way to do it. Please, you leave a hug foot print of data anywhere you go. Far easier to use electronics to monitor you.
Now, if you are doing business with a known group of criminals, and you are encrypting all your data, and you may be transporting something of interest, Then it's time to consider using a drone.
Fox news has been drumming up dear about drones as an attack against Obama. Of course they are doing this because agency like the EPA use them to find polluters and corporation dropping crap into our drinking water. As a by product of that, Drones are higher up on peoples radar. heh.
Slashdot Mirror
Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Come on, stem cells, work your astounding scientific nonsense!
Philip J. Fry: Fetal stem cells? Aren't those controversial?
Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: In your time, yes. But nowadays... shut up! Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from healthy adults whom I've killed for their stem cells.
"There are indeed statistics on such crimes."
I can't find any actual study. Citation? or is are you just making an assumption and then say look it up because you don't actually know of any?
"which numerous studies have shown remain as numerous when guns are banned"
That's a lie.
Hear is a clue: Most suicide are spontaneous. literally, most people who decide to kill them selves do so when the right opportunity presents itself at the right moment... mostly on Wednesday.
Creepy, isn't it?
Example:
A long time ago, the favorite way for someone to kill them selves was with Coal Gas. When Britain switched from Coal Gas to a gas that wouldn't kill you, suicide rates drop buy about 30%..and didn't return.
When a research tracked down what happened to 500 people that tried to commit suicide, but where stropped by police, only 6% went on to commit suicide.
There are many studies on this .
So having an easy and mostly painless way to kill yourself in the home increases suicides.
I know, it's fucking weird, counter intuitive and unnerving.
But studies bear it out.
I mean. we are talking about average people. People who would have said earlier in the day the would never think to kill themselves, then attempt suicide.
"British gun crime went up after handguns were banned." ,(pre 2001) method of data collecting, gun violence is trending down. Which is what you would expect if gun control does reduce crimes. The redefined what light means. Pre 2005 slight mean an injury not requiring a hospital stay. In 2005 it was change so that even being threatened with a gun was considered a 'slight injury'. So you can see why the numbers would increase.
hmm. It's slight more complicated. The increase seems to have been a normal rising and falling in a longer trend. IT's not like the made it illegal and magically removed the guns.
So, does it regress to the mean? is the mean trending up or down?
Also bear in mind that the way the take statics changes. When using old
My bias is towards good data and a good policy supported by the data. The data actual shows a decrease in gun violence overall when guns are banned.
You need to understand how to look at data, and understand that the definitions of what data is collected can be changed and impact the numbers. so when A simpleton looks at the data they just see 'rise in gun violence' and concludes banning is bad. A wise person see a jump in statistics and look at the data and how is was collected and then draws there opinion.
Please be wise.
Interesting note, I want to look up the last year to add it to an overall trend, and everyplace I went to the reported an increase report the raw numbers, not per capita.
granted I only looked at a 3 or 4 sites.
And a lot more dead neighbors. The vast majority of shot fired in an actual situation miss.
" tens of thousands of lives are saved by guns every year."
that's quite a jump. The study shows nothing of the sort.
The criminals weren't there to kill anyone.
Please don't conflate someone stealing your TV with someone who will kill you to take your TV.
Can you site the study? because I can't find any study at the CDC to backs what you claims it says.
So I suspect you got an incorrect piece of information from some source(echo chamber) and haven't actual read any such study your self.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Yes, people who don't know what actually was going on, and people who have no idea what goes on in those situations.
Oh, and people who support abuse of women and children.
Which isn't to say mistakes weren't made, only that there is a lot of things going on, only that it's a complex subject.
Push come to shove? I would wager it will be No.
But hey, maybe you would take the easy and cowardly way out instead of using effective means to end tyranny.
"The person attempting to separate a firearm from its owner is an agent of tyranny."
Oh now, I disarmed a mugger. Clearly I am supporting tyranny.
Idiot.
Close. Long knives. And they consulted chefs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm
Good. It should make you upset.
Guns are expressly created to kill things.
SO don't use the tool comparison. Yes it's a tool, but it's a tool designed to kill at a distance.
"A gun for most people is a 'Punch holes in paper at a distance' tool"
Maybe, but it isn't the primary design use.
" blame the damn fool holding it."
How about a process to minimize fools getting this tool?
You have presented an argument from ignorance.
You know nothing about crime, criminals, or situation where gun shots are fired.
Most criminals don't think that far ahead.
Most shooting aren't planned
Few, if any, will have the means to clone a firing pin.
The steps to get around the micro-stamping are hard to conceal.
Micro-stamping is good protection for the legal owner that has his gun stolen.
IS it perfect? no. Is it good? yes.
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
What we have here is people who just want to kill any law dealing with guns without actually thinking about it.
The wise move for the NRA would be to back this. It doesn't stifle ownership, it can protect owners, and it can help stop people who use there firearms in a crime.
Incorrect. I am familiar with the letters and context of said letters. IT was about having the cheapest way to have an army. The context of personal gun ownership of that time is to have people they could call to arms because they couldn't afford a standing army. That was because the only way they could do that would be to house military personal with private citizens; which there experience showed them was very, very, bad. Hence specifically not allowing it.
A person cherry picking quotes is not a work of "Constitutional scholars".
He also doesn't seem to understand the constitution wasn't just a written document that was whipped up. Different parts where debated over, and added and not in the order one reads it. Document like that are not fictional stories written in order to tell a story.
So you have to take the debates into account when thinking about specific amendment wording. To do otherwise is, at best, ignorant.
Another point that seems to get missed is that 'Bear' doesn't means 'carry'. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. In fact, a literal period interpretation would mean hand guns wouldn't be included.
"This was an innovation of the Reagan Administration, along with peacetime budget deficits, astrologers in the White House and the $1trillion "Star Wars" missile defense system. Interesting, that early 1980s seems to have been some sort of turning point, after which American started a rapid decline. I don't know if there is any connection, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess."
Absolutely correct. Reagan is when the republican organization started making active decisions for the Office. It was also when the 'Religious right' started gain a lot of influence.
You're post provides exactly no opposing arguments to to person you are replying to.
And crime was a lot higher in 1970 then it is now. SO you ancient example from a period that is completely different doesn't really apply.
Too bad liberal gun ownership laws would not have stopped either of your examples.
So guns are useful only when doing illegal activities? You might want to think about a different example, because frankly I have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
Except when I miss use a hammer I can't accident kill someone 50 yards way.
He needs a tablet. I suspect he is more focused on Linux then the actual needs.
I disagree. I have seen kids learn a lot, and develop a lot using a laptop. even more with a tablet.
If you think all the internet is just porn Google and Wikipedia, then you are a close minded fool.
There are a lot of great resources for learning and exploring.
Khan academy alone can make it worth while.
The IT level of the person education is a byproduct of education not having enough money to higher qualified people. He's probably making 15 bucks an hour.
It can be a good idea, depending on implementation. I would LOVE to see an open system of online textbooks. You are going to hate this but, I would love to see the Dept. of Education take money from NCLB an put int into an online textbook system available to all schools. It would save the schools systems, and taxpayers, a shit ton of money. Done properly, it could be done in a way where children who are excelling can move on to the next ares of a subject.
" anything but the cheapest equipment is insane. " err.. no. Of course a mac AIR would be stupid, but there are other factor beside the machine cost. Easy of set up, easy of crating a new image, while they may be broke, they should still try to get reasonable tough on, and of course price. You need to balance that. A table device would be better then a laptop. You will need a cover, but they are the best solution in all the other factors.
"Is it any wonder test scores are stagnant since the 1950s?"
Since they adjust the tests, they should be stagnant. They real question is, are the questions moving up or down. Is the math on thetests harder? the same? easier?
"It really is time to make the cost of education the responsiblity of just those with school age children."
no. Everyone benefits from an educated society. The higher the education of the society, the lower the crime. The higher the education, more industry and jobs. Higher education, the more solutions to problem are discovered. If you never have kids, you still benefit fro a public school system.
It's called society, and it's what we use to build civilization, you might want to look into it.
" That would rapidly put an end to the wastefulness and general idiocy of the school systems."
How many school budgets have you read? how many analysis of those budget?
what's that? none? well then fuck you.
used to an OS they won't use in the real world?
Very few people use Linux, and you know it.
HA!
What about training?
"nd that's aerial surveillance"
and? The EPA uses them to monitor waster dumping in remote agencies, they are use to patrol military bases, remote missle silos, and probabl a 1000 other uses.
Using a drone to monitor anyone not actually involved in illegal activities would be the stupidest way to do it. Please, you leave a hug foot print of data anywhere you go. Far easier to use electronics to monitor you.
Now, if you are doing business with a known group of criminals, and you are encrypting all your data, and you may be transporting something of interest, Then it's time to consider using a drone.
Almost as if the US military does something in isolated mountainous areas...
Fox news has been drumming up dear about drones as an attack against Obama.
Of course they are doing this because agency like the EPA use them to find polluters and corporation dropping crap into our drinking water.
As a by product of that, Drones are higher up on peoples radar. heh.
the military is flying aircraft in the US!!!!!11!!
Ahhh, we are all going to rounded up!!!!1
I hear the military has aircraft with people actualli in them flying! What are these people up to?
Idiots.