I don't know where you get your info, but you can buy a new 1911 in CA no problem. Maybe you were referring to a particular make, but there are tons of 1911 models by many manufacturers that are available in CA for new purchase. Springfield and Kimber come to mind.
When we first had the flame war over this discussion, many people properly pointed out that the system blatantly fails at every scenario except 'gun stolen from a safe while owner was still wearing the arming watch.'
It probably fails at this scenario too. While low level crooks/theives might not be smart or have resources, they do use and are part of a larger criminal network, and it wouldn't be long before people figured out how to disable the electronic lockout, or reprogram the chip to match a new arming watch.
Just like the guy who steals smart phones, might not have the know how, he then sells them to someone who has the capability of reprogramming the IMEI number on them to make them re-usable. Same with some smart keys and other devices for cars, if a "clone" can't be made, it can still be bypassed someway, given the criminal has the gun in their possession and unlimited time to perform the modifications.
So by own admission, your car is just as dangerous (or innocuous) as your gun, since neither have killed anyone. Then why do you try to claim that your gun is more dangerous than your car?
If you put both your car and your gun on the ground, side by side, will the gun have a propensity to do something that your car won't? Will the gun suddenly get 'bored of sitting there' and jump up and shoot anyone given enough time? Didn't think so...
I shouldn't need to provide stats to an AC, but here goes...
There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.
Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).
Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.
Most, if not all the ranges around me do not allow the use of human silhouette targets, zombies, or animals. You only have the option of shooting a circle target.
However, for self defense training and practice, the use of human shapes is ideal, as just hitting in the black does not mean much. To stop a violent attacker, you usually want to hit vital areas, rather than periphery areas and extremities of the body. An attacker can still continue to attack if wounded in the arm, or shot in the stomach, where-as hitting in a vital area, like the thoracic cavity, or the cranial ocular cavity is the quickest way to stop an attacker... it just so happens to also be the same areas that are most lethal. Why do you think most, if not all, police agencies use human silhouettes for pactice, are they also mentally "sick" and daydreaming of shooting people?
I also doubt the truth in your statement, and are more likely making this up. You call the people at ranges "gun-fondlers", but in the same breath say "when I go to the range". Doesn't that make you a fellow "gun-fondler" or are you somehow morally unapproachable while performing the same actions as the people you are trying to put down.
Or maybe they should release the source to the "binary blog" of the DRM modules. That would probably piss a lot of the big media companies off, but at least, This way they can still claim FOSS status, and the DRM algorithms will be out in the open for all to see. It wouldn't take long before someone made a plug-in to allow un-DRM'ing any DRM content. Yay! Only a dream I guess.
Who says the person is even holding the spot longer than they would normally?
If your car is parked on the street, and your meeting just let out, you could post your spot, and have a buyer lined up and waiting by the time you left the building and walked to your car. In that case, your not hording a spot, or keeping it longer than needed, or selling the parking space. Your simply charging for advanced warning that your about to leave and your spot will be available.
I'm sure most of us have done that in a busy parking lot before, where you know it crowded, and you see cars circling around for spots, and as you walk to the other end of the lot to find your car, let one of the people looking for a space know that your leaving and they can have yours if they get there before any one else that's looking for one. That's not illegal, your just forwarning that your leaving and letting the person know where your car is, and that your ABOUT to leave so they can beat other people to it.
For the record though, I don't see this service taking off though. There is too many ways for it not to work as intended. And if spots are really in high demand, you'll run into problems where someone circling the block over and over, waiting for someone to leave, will spot you about to leave and wait for you, before the buyer gets there, meaning there will be a "I was here first" / "but I bought the spot" argument. I know if I was looking for a spot the old fashioned way, and I saw someone getting ready to leave, I wouldn't let some random person come after me have the spot just because they paid the persons for it. First come, first served, which in many cases probably won't be the person who bid on the spot.
Public transportation sucks, and that is my opinion of it, your opinion may differ. Just like our reasons for why we think that may differ.
I don't like public transportation because as someone else mentioned, you're crammed into small confines with tons of other people, who are sick, smell, rude, and/or thieves or in some places complete thugs and gang-bangers.
Most of the times I've taken BART to the city, there is little to no parking at the BART stations, so you spend 20-30 mins circling the parking lot to find a park, before you can catch your train. Once you do catch your train, there are no seats available, and it's standing room only with everyone arm-pit to arm-pit packed.
Once you get to the other side, unless the BART station is right next to where you are going, you still have a long walk, or multiple other public transportation switches to make, like the bus, or the trollies, or the MUNI trams. Once you get off these, you STILL have to walk to your destination, they just get you closer.
Unless you do it often, figuring out how to take 3 different flavors or transportation, where to switch between them, where they go, and on what schedule is extremely frustrating.
Lastly, you are on their schedule, your waiting for the bus at the bus stop, your waiting at the tram station for the correct tram to arrive, your waiting at the BART station for the correct train. Tons of waiting in between at each transfer, plus payment methods. If you are a frequent rider, then you might be able to get your passes all in order, but if you do it occasionally, or are from out of town, you are buying tickets and passes at each stop along the way as well which kills time. Add in all the stops they make along the way, and you don't save that much time, so I would count that out as a benefit.
All for what, to save a couple bucks? I prefer NOT to be THAT cultured when it comes to sitting next to other people I don't know and treated like cattle. Call me uncivilized, but I prefer to drive when I go to the city, but I must admit, that is not often.
When I heard the story, it was a drawbridge getting repaired by a Father/Son repair team. They raised the bridge and the son had to work on the bridge gearing mechanisms.
Essentially, the father had to make the decision when the train was comming to either let the train crash, or throw the switch to close the drawbridge therefore crushing and killing the son in the gears.
I believe the decision is a tougher one when someone you know or love is the one being sacrificed. But I don't know if this is original story or not, as I've only heard this version and didn't know it's origins prior to this.
Yes, dropbox used to mention this in the documentation (don't know if they still do), but if you put it in your public folder, it is public. I believe they used to say that it was even accessible without a link, if someone knew (or guessed) the specific folder+filename. One reason why I keep everything inside subject folders (within the public area) and not just plopped into the public folder en-mass, as it makes it harder to guess as you would have to guess the folder-name as well.
On another note, another think I do when I send a document (like applications or forms with personal data on them), is I upload the file to a custom folder, then send the link to the recipient with the specific instructions that they let me know once they've downloaded it, so I can delete it off dropbox. That way, in most cases, it's only available for a few minutes to maybe a couple hours at most, and if anyone happens to intercept the URL, the chances of the file still being there are slim, as it's deleted as soon as the intended recipient gets it. The only way it can be stolen, is if someone intercepts the email AND tries to download the file faster than the recipient does. While it's not fool proof, it's not a bad idea completely. Surely it's better than attaching the file to an email that gets passed through several servers along the way and copies are kept at each of those points.
I have to say though, in most cases, when someone sends me a file, I despise when they want to do a "share" rather than send me a download URL. The share semi-permanently links my account to theirs at that point, and takes up space on my allotment of space. Just send me a download link.
Thank god for that last sentence... how do you people live like that? I know I'm from a small country, but around here most of my daily commutes are less than 10 miles (to use the same units as you, we use metric around here). In fact, over the course of a year, I'd count with one hand the number of times I'd do a 120 mile trip in a day. It just sounds insane.
As I mentioned, I'm a freelance developer, so about 60-80% of my work is from home. But my projects are spread out all over the place, so the last portion of each project usually requires me to make a trip or two to the physical job-site to deploy, test, and commission a system. I'm glad I don't have to do it everyday either, drives me crazy. Makes it even worse, that with traffic being what it is in the Bay Area, it takes about 2 hrs to make each 60mi. trip. Meaning a good 4 hrs is spent on a round trip commute.
Something better in which sense? The $80K model accelerates from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. How many other cars with that price do the same? And how many cars with that price do the same without significant modifications (which you may not want to do or be able/knowledgeable to do)?
A corvette has better performance for less money, but is only 2 seater...
Yes, and I'm one who does know how to modify cars. Heck, my 2002 Subaru WRX already has a better (or as good) 0-60 time as that and I only paid $23K for the car (new), and a few thousand in modifications (engine swap, turbo upgrade, fuel system upgrade, exhause/intake, and ECU reprogramming). Overall, I think I'm less than $30K into it.
If I had $80K to spend on a car, I would look at something in the $40K range, and sink another $10K in mods into it, and pocket the difference. It would net you a car that was probably faster than 99% of what's on the road, including the Tesla. You could do this with a newer WRX STi or a EVO no problem. There are others out there now days that would be good choices as well. You just have to pick something that has a good starting point, and has potential.
Your figure for gun deaths is a blatant slant of the statistics. 61% of those deaths are from suicides, not homicides. And another study was done on suicides that showed no change in the number of suicides when guns are available or not, meaning the suicides are going to happen regardless of the availability of guns, so including that figure is misleading.
Your figure for gun deaths also includes "justifiable deaths", where good guys are defending themselves from bad guys. Including those deaths is also a lie used to inflate your figures.
Yes, we have a "RIGHT to bear arms". Not a privilege, a right. How come liberals don't mind putting all kinds of hurdles to jump through for this right, but then use the argument that a telephone is a right, so people who can't afford one, need to have it subsidized by taxpayers? Never mind the fact that phone service, or electricity is never mentioned in the Constitution as an inalienable right, by the logic of a liberal... Since gun ownership is actually is a right, if I'm poor, or can't afford my own, do I get one subsidized by the taxpayers? If so I'm waiting for my free "Obama-gun"
Actually, he agreed to pay the fee's, but only to the county/state, not the feds, citing from the Constitution that the Federal government doesn't have any power to actually own/hold land other than the small confines of DC (for the capital) and other limited zones around the country for military bases. His claim, is that basically all of BLM land is illegitimately owned by the Feds, and should actually belong to each state. (according to the Constitution). This is why he supposedly offered to pay the county/state the fee's, but BLM had other ideas.
Really? You don't read the same news articles I do if you haven't heard people ragging on the new concept of "free speech zones" that the government has started using more and more when it's convenient for them. Many despise this idea just as much.
Again this technology does not address any of these nor was it supposed to. It is supposed to prevent accidental shooting and weapons theft.
"Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all."
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
Meanwhile, you are:
Five times more likely to burn to death
Five times more likely to drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
17 times more likely to fall to your death
And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
And a whopping 286 times more likely to die by a 'medical mistake' at the hands of a doctor or nurse
Looking at the stats, I think we have bigger problems to worry about than accidental firearm deaths, but because people "fear" guns irrationally, guns get focused on more, instead of any of the other categories above.
The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.
The constitution doesn't list "self defense" as the reason for the 2nd amendment either. Nor does it list hunting, or target practice. The reason listed is to protect freedoms. It's the last resort to stop Tyranny from our own government, or from a foreign invasion.
This is why Chicago, and recently California had major higher court decisions made against their anti-gun policies. They violated the Constitution. The Supreme courts "Heller" case overturned one of Chicago's bans, and the recently the 9th Circuit just overturned a California CCW policy with the "Peruta" and also the "Richards" case. I know that there are several others in California still making their way through the court system as we speak, dealing with hand gun rosters, and waiting periods. I'm sure NY and other gun unfriendly states each have their own cases making their way through the court system as well.
My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but...
Despite what anti-gunners want to think, it's not a matter of re-writing the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is considered "devine rights" or "natural rights", that every person is born with. They do not list them as rights that are granted by the Government (and thus able to be repealed by the Government). They are rights that every person is born with that the Government CANNOT take away. That is the whole point of the BofR, to list the things the Government cannot do, not enumerate what Citizens are allowed to do.
BTW, your slant on things is typical, by calling someone pro-gun a "RedNeck" you try to paint a negative picture of anyone who is pro-gun rights. I live in the Bay Area in California, one of the biggest metropolitan areas on the west coast, and am pro-gun, pro-second amendment. Would I be classified as a RedNeck? There are many others that I know that live here too that share the same views (and others that don't obviously...being California).
And what happens if during a firefight, you shoot hand is injured, and you need to switch to your "offhand" to stay in the fight? Shooting and reloading with a single hand (off-handed) is often something that is trained for in decent firearms courses for this reason.
Removing the battery argument, which is valid for many gun owners. I know gun owners who don't put battery power scopes on their rifles (ie: red dot or holographics), due to the fact that the battery will go dead when you need it the most, and make it useless.
But ignoring the battery, the watch part of it has many drawbacks as well for self defense use. What happens when you get woken up in the middle of the night, and not only do you have to react, and find your gun, but now you have to put this watch on as well before it will be usable. Technically, if you follow what the anti-gunners want, you would need to unlock your gun safe, and get your gun, then unlock your ammo locker and get your ammo, then load your low-capacity magazine up, then put your watch on. All after being woken in the night from a dead sleep from the sound of breaking glass in another part of the house. Does that not seem like a problem?
Ok, so you decide to wear the watch all the time, so your ready to go with it, you also ignore the other stupid laws about "safe-storage" so the gun is right next to you within arms reach while you sleep. Great! Right??? Well for you it is. But not you've gotten up at 5:30am for work and leave the house at 6am to head into the office, leaving your wife and kids at home still asleep. Then a bad guy breaks into your house after seeing you leaving for work. You're wife hears the sound, wakes up, and grabs the gun from the nightstand, but it goes "beep" and won't work, because you have the watch on still and aren't home.
Ok, so you buy extra watches and whatever the extra cost is, so you and your wife have one now (making this gun one expensive firearm by now). Great! Right??? Well, maybe not, what happens if you and your wife are at work, and your teenage daughter gets home from school and is home alone. Same situation, bad guy knows adults aren't home (cars missing from drive), and saw your daughter there by herself, so decides to do what bad guys do. Your daughter, having been trained by you to be responsible with guns and also proficient with them, has all the skills to protect herself from this dirt-bag, and knows you keep one in the nightstand, races into your room and grabs it, except for one thing, she doesn't have a watch cause she wouldn't 'normally' need access to the firearm.
Ok, so you buy a watch for everyone in your family, adults, kids, everyone, to avoid these scenarios, then what is the different, other than price, than a regular firearm that just works?
Or how about when you get a second firearm, do you now have to wear 2 watches all the time, so you don't end up in a situation where you grabs one gun, but the watch you are wearing is for your other one that is not convenient to get to in whatever situation you find yourself in? What happens if you own 4,5, or 6 handguns (many, many people own several, it's common). Are you going to want to wear a watch for all of them all the time, and buy all the spare watches for other members of your household to have them too? I'm sure the watches won't be cheap, I know how much it costs if you need to buy a new wireless keyfob for most cars now days, and it's usually over $100 per unit. This would make the cost of ownership several times higher per firearm. The gun itself, is about 3 times more expensive than a 'normal handgun' of similar type as it is.
The reason guns are preferred for self-defense isn't long distance reasons, most real life gun encounters happen is less than 15ft. proximity.
The main reason guns are preferred for self-defense has everything to do with the fact that they are the great "equalizer" when it comes to dealing with attackers. If you're a 5ft. 110lb female and are getting attacked by a 6'2" 250lb man, is it a fair fight even if you have a knife (or sword)? Many would agree that it still wouldn't be a fair fight, and that woman would still be at a disadvantage. Same with an 70 year old elderly person, who doesn't have the strength or stamina to get in a physical altercation with or without a knife or sword.
Guns are an equalizer, they put everyone on a level playing field -- it doesn't matter if you are elderly, crippled, weaker or not physically fit, if you have use a firearm for self defense, you are on an equal playing field with your attacker (or maybe have an advantage if they aren't armed).
Sure, but why does every vehicle have to work for *everybody*?
I hear you, I'm not against different cars for different peoples needs. People's needs are different, and they have every right to get what works best for them at the time, and what works best for them may change as different phases of their life come and go. That's why we have everything from motorcycles to heavy duty pick-up trucks to choose from.
The only caveat and complaint I have, is this holds true as long as the government isn't trying to force these things on the rest of us...either indirectly by offset incentives, discounts for power, free charging stations -or directly- by setting un-realistic mandated CAFE requirements on the manufactures (which forces the auto makers to make more of the tiny tonka toy cars (like the Yaris) and less of the other kinds) thus limiting the supply (and driving the costs up) for other alternatives like sports cars and SUV's.
Because one of the main factors when a lot of people buy cars, is looks. The other being performance. If not, then sports cars would not be a viable market. I would never buy a fugly car, no matter how many MPG's it got, and I'm not the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you get your info, but you can buy a new 1911 in CA no problem. Maybe you were referring to a particular make, but there are tons of 1911 models by many manufacturers that are available in CA for new purchase. Springfield and Kimber come to mind.
When we first had the flame war over this discussion, many people properly pointed out that the system blatantly fails at every scenario except 'gun stolen from a safe while owner was still wearing the arming watch.'
It probably fails at this scenario too. While low level crooks/theives might not be smart or have resources, they do use and are part of a larger criminal network, and it wouldn't be long before people figured out how to disable the electronic lockout, or reprogram the chip to match a new arming watch.
Just like the guy who steals smart phones, might not have the know how, he then sells them to someone who has the capability of reprogramming the IMEI number on them to make them re-usable. Same with some smart keys and other devices for cars, if a "clone" can't be made, it can still be bypassed someway, given the criminal has the gun in their possession and unlimited time to perform the modifications.
So by own admission, your car is just as dangerous (or innocuous) as your gun, since neither have killed anyone. Then why do you try to claim that your gun is more dangerous than your car?
If you put both your car and your gun on the ground, side by side, will the gun have a propensity to do something that your car won't? Will the gun suddenly get 'bored of sitting there' and jump up and shoot anyone given enough time? Didn't think so...
I shouldn't need to provide stats to an AC, but here goes...
There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.
Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).
Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.
Most, if not all the ranges around me do not allow the use of human silhouette targets, zombies, or animals. You only have the option of shooting a circle target.
However, for self defense training and practice, the use of human shapes is ideal, as just hitting in the black does not mean much. To stop a violent attacker, you usually want to hit vital areas, rather than periphery areas and extremities of the body. An attacker can still continue to attack if wounded in the arm, or shot in the stomach, where-as hitting in a vital area, like the thoracic cavity, or the cranial ocular cavity is the quickest way to stop an attacker... it just so happens to also be the same areas that are most lethal. Why do you think most, if not all, police agencies use human silhouettes for pactice, are they also mentally "sick" and daydreaming of shooting people?
I also doubt the truth in your statement, and are more likely making this up. You call the people at ranges "gun-fondlers", but in the same breath say "when I go to the range". Doesn't that make you a fellow "gun-fondler" or are you somehow morally unapproachable while performing the same actions as the people you are trying to put down.
Or maybe they should release the source to the "binary blog" of the DRM modules. That would probably piss a lot of the big media companies off, but at least, This way they can still claim FOSS status, and the DRM algorithms will be out in the open for all to see. It wouldn't take long before someone made a plug-in to allow un-DRM'ing any DRM content. Yay! Only a dream I guess.
Who says the person is even holding the spot longer than they would normally?
If your car is parked on the street, and your meeting just let out, you could post your spot, and have a buyer lined up and waiting by the time you left the building and walked to your car. In that case, your not hording a spot, or keeping it longer than needed, or selling the parking space. Your simply charging for advanced warning that your about to leave and your spot will be available.
I'm sure most of us have done that in a busy parking lot before, where you know it crowded, and you see cars circling around for spots, and as you walk to the other end of the lot to find your car, let one of the people looking for a space know that your leaving and they can have yours if they get there before any one else that's looking for one. That's not illegal, your just forwarning that your leaving and letting the person know where your car is, and that your ABOUT to leave so they can beat other people to it.
For the record though, I don't see this service taking off though. There is too many ways for it not to work as intended. And if spots are really in high demand, you'll run into problems where someone circling the block over and over, waiting for someone to leave, will spot you about to leave and wait for you, before the buyer gets there, meaning there will be a "I was here first" / "but I bought the spot" argument. I know if I was looking for a spot the old fashioned way, and I saw someone getting ready to leave, I wouldn't let some random person come after me have the spot just because they paid the persons for it. First come, first served, which in many cases probably won't be the person who bid on the spot.
Public transportation sucks, and that is my opinion of it, your opinion may differ. Just like our reasons for why we think that may differ.
I don't like public transportation because as someone else mentioned, you're crammed into small confines with tons of other people, who are sick, smell, rude, and/or thieves or in some places complete thugs and gang-bangers.
Most of the times I've taken BART to the city, there is little to no parking at the BART stations, so you spend 20-30 mins circling the parking lot to find a park, before you can catch your train. Once you do catch your train, there are no seats available, and it's standing room only with everyone arm-pit to arm-pit packed.
Once you get to the other side, unless the BART station is right next to where you are going, you still have a long walk, or multiple other public transportation switches to make, like the bus, or the trollies, or the MUNI trams. Once you get off these, you STILL have to walk to your destination, they just get you closer.
Unless you do it often, figuring out how to take 3 different flavors or transportation, where to switch between them, where they go, and on what schedule is extremely frustrating.
Lastly, you are on their schedule, your waiting for the bus at the bus stop, your waiting at the tram station for the correct tram to arrive, your waiting at the BART station for the correct train. Tons of waiting in between at each transfer, plus payment methods. If you are a frequent rider, then you might be able to get your passes all in order, but if you do it occasionally, or are from out of town, you are buying tickets and passes at each stop along the way as well which kills time. Add in all the stops they make along the way, and you don't save that much time, so I would count that out as a benefit.
All for what, to save a couple bucks? I prefer NOT to be THAT cultured when it comes to sitting next to other people I don't know and treated like cattle. Call me uncivilized, but I prefer to drive when I go to the city, but I must admit, that is not often.
When I heard the story, it was a drawbridge getting repaired by a Father/Son repair team. They raised the bridge and the son had to work on the bridge gearing mechanisms.
Essentially, the father had to make the decision when the train was comming to either let the train crash, or throw the switch to close the drawbridge therefore crushing and killing the son in the gears.
I believe the decision is a tougher one when someone you know or love is the one being sacrificed. But I don't know if this is original story or not, as I've only heard this version and didn't know it's origins prior to this.
Yes, dropbox used to mention this in the documentation (don't know if they still do), but if you put it in your public folder, it is public. I believe they used to say that it was even accessible without a link, if someone knew (or guessed) the specific folder+filename. One reason why I keep everything inside subject folders (within the public area) and not just plopped into the public folder en-mass, as it makes it harder to guess as you would have to guess the folder-name as well.
On another note, another think I do when I send a document (like applications or forms with personal data on them), is I upload the file to a custom folder, then send the link to the recipient with the specific instructions that they let me know once they've downloaded it, so I can delete it off dropbox. That way, in most cases, it's only available for a few minutes to maybe a couple hours at most, and if anyone happens to intercept the URL, the chances of the file still being there are slim, as it's deleted as soon as the intended recipient gets it. The only way it can be stolen, is if someone intercepts the email AND tries to download the file faster than the recipient does. While it's not fool proof, it's not a bad idea completely. Surely it's better than attaching the file to an email that gets passed through several servers along the way and copies are kept at each of those points.
I have to say though, in most cases, when someone sends me a file, I despise when they want to do a "share" rather than send me a download URL. The share semi-permanently links my account to theirs at that point, and takes up space on my allotment of space. Just send me a download link.
Thank god for that last sentence... how do you people live like that? I know I'm from a small country, but around here most of my daily commutes are less than 10 miles (to use the same units as you, we use metric around here). In fact, over the course of a year, I'd count with one hand the number of times I'd do a 120 mile trip in a day. It just sounds insane.
As I mentioned, I'm a freelance developer, so about 60-80% of my work is from home. But my projects are spread out all over the place, so the last portion of each project usually requires me to make a trip or two to the physical job-site to deploy, test, and commission a system. I'm glad I don't have to do it everyday either, drives me crazy. Makes it even worse, that with traffic being what it is in the Bay Area, it takes about 2 hrs to make each 60mi. trip. Meaning a good 4 hrs is spent on a round trip commute.
Something better in which sense? The $80K model accelerates from 0-60 in 4.2 seconds. How many other cars with that price do the same? And how many cars with that price do the same without significant modifications (which you may not want to do or be able/knowledgeable to do)?
A corvette has better performance for less money, but is only 2 seater... Yes, and I'm one who does know how to modify cars. Heck, my 2002 Subaru WRX already has a better (or as good) 0-60 time as that and I only paid $23K for the car (new), and a few thousand in modifications (engine swap, turbo upgrade, fuel system upgrade, exhause/intake, and ECU reprogramming). Overall, I think I'm less than $30K into it.
If I had $80K to spend on a car, I would look at something in the $40K range, and sink another $10K in mods into it, and pocket the difference. It would net you a car that was probably faster than 99% of what's on the road, including the Tesla. You could do this with a newer WRX STi or a EVO no problem. There are others out there now days that would be good choices as well. You just have to pick something that has a good starting point, and has potential.
Your figure for gun deaths is a blatant slant of the statistics. 61% of those deaths are from suicides, not homicides. And another study was done on suicides that showed no change in the number of suicides when guns are available or not, meaning the suicides are going to happen regardless of the availability of guns, so including that figure is misleading.
Your figure for gun deaths also includes "justifiable deaths", where good guys are defending themselves from bad guys. Including those deaths is also a lie used to inflate your figures.
Yes, we have a "RIGHT to bear arms". Not a privilege, a right. How come liberals don't mind putting all kinds of hurdles to jump through for this right, but then use the argument that a telephone is a right, so people who can't afford one, need to have it subsidized by taxpayers? Never mind the fact that phone service, or electricity is never mentioned in the Constitution as an inalienable right, by the logic of a liberal... Since gun ownership is actually is a right, if I'm poor, or can't afford my own, do I get one subsidized by the taxpayers? If so I'm waiting for my free "Obama-gun"
Actually, he agreed to pay the fee's, but only to the county/state, not the feds, citing from the Constitution that the Federal government doesn't have any power to actually own/hold land other than the small confines of DC (for the capital) and other limited zones around the country for military bases. His claim, is that basically all of BLM land is illegitimately owned by the Feds, and should actually belong to each state. (according to the Constitution). This is why he supposedly offered to pay the county/state the fee's, but BLM had other ideas.
Really? You don't read the same news articles I do if you haven't heard people ragging on the new concept of "free speech zones" that the government has started using more and more when it's convenient for them. Many despise this idea just as much.
Again this technology does not address any of these nor was it supposed to. It is supposed to prevent accidental shooting and weapons theft.
"Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all." http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
Meanwhile, you are:
Five times more likely to burn to death
Five times more likely to drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
17 times more likely to fall to your death
And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
And a whopping 286 times more likely to die by a 'medical mistake' at the hands of a doctor or nurse
Looking at the stats, I think we have bigger problems to worry about than accidental firearm deaths, but because people "fear" guns irrationally, guns get focused on more, instead of any of the other categories above.
The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.
The constitution doesn't list "self defense" as the reason for the 2nd amendment either. Nor does it list hunting, or target practice. The reason listed is to protect freedoms. It's the last resort to stop Tyranny from our own government, or from a foreign invasion.
This is why Chicago, and recently California had major higher court decisions made against their anti-gun policies. They violated the Constitution. The Supreme courts "Heller" case overturned one of Chicago's bans, and the recently the 9th Circuit just overturned a California CCW policy with the "Peruta" and also the "Richards" case. I know that there are several others in California still making their way through the court system as we speak, dealing with hand gun rosters, and waiting periods. I'm sure NY and other gun unfriendly states each have their own cases making their way through the court system as well.
My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but...
Despite what anti-gunners want to think, it's not a matter of re-writing the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is considered "devine rights" or "natural rights", that every person is born with. They do not list them as rights that are granted by the Government (and thus able to be repealed by the Government). They are rights that every person is born with that the Government CANNOT take away. That is the whole point of the BofR, to list the things the Government cannot do, not enumerate what Citizens are allowed to do.
BTW, your slant on things is typical, by calling someone pro-gun a "RedNeck" you try to paint a negative picture of anyone who is pro-gun rights. I live in the Bay Area in California, one of the biggest metropolitan areas on the west coast, and am pro-gun, pro-second amendment. Would I be classified as a RedNeck? There are many others that I know that live here too that share the same views (and others that don't obviously...being California).
And what happens if during a firefight, you shoot hand is injured, and you need to switch to your "offhand" to stay in the fight? Shooting and reloading with a single hand (off-handed) is often something that is trained for in decent firearms courses for this reason.
Removing the battery argument, which is valid for many gun owners. I know gun owners who don't put battery power scopes on their rifles (ie: red dot or holographics), due to the fact that the battery will go dead when you need it the most, and make it useless.
But ignoring the battery, the watch part of it has many drawbacks as well for self defense use. What happens when you get woken up in the middle of the night, and not only do you have to react, and find your gun, but now you have to put this watch on as well before it will be usable. Technically, if you follow what the anti-gunners want, you would need to unlock your gun safe, and get your gun, then unlock your ammo locker and get your ammo, then load your low-capacity magazine up, then put your watch on. All after being woken in the night from a dead sleep from the sound of breaking glass in another part of the house. Does that not seem like a problem?
Ok, so you decide to wear the watch all the time, so your ready to go with it, you also ignore the other stupid laws about "safe-storage" so the gun is right next to you within arms reach while you sleep. Great! Right??? Well for you it is. But not you've gotten up at 5:30am for work and leave the house at 6am to head into the office, leaving your wife and kids at home still asleep. Then a bad guy breaks into your house after seeing you leaving for work. You're wife hears the sound, wakes up, and grabs the gun from the nightstand, but it goes "beep" and won't work, because you have the watch on still and aren't home.
Ok, so you buy extra watches and whatever the extra cost is, so you and your wife have one now (making this gun one expensive firearm by now). Great! Right??? Well, maybe not, what happens if you and your wife are at work, and your teenage daughter gets home from school and is home alone. Same situation, bad guy knows adults aren't home (cars missing from drive), and saw your daughter there by herself, so decides to do what bad guys do. Your daughter, having been trained by you to be responsible with guns and also proficient with them, has all the skills to protect herself from this dirt-bag, and knows you keep one in the nightstand, races into your room and grabs it, except for one thing, she doesn't have a watch cause she wouldn't 'normally' need access to the firearm.
Ok, so you buy a watch for everyone in your family, adults, kids, everyone, to avoid these scenarios, then what is the different, other than price, than a regular firearm that just works?
Or how about when you get a second firearm, do you now have to wear 2 watches all the time, so you don't end up in a situation where you grabs one gun, but the watch you are wearing is for your other one that is not convenient to get to in whatever situation you find yourself in? What happens if you own 4,5, or 6 handguns (many, many people own several, it's common). Are you going to want to wear a watch for all of them all the time, and buy all the spare watches for other members of your household to have them too? I'm sure the watches won't be cheap, I know how much it costs if you need to buy a new wireless keyfob for most cars now days, and it's usually over $100 per unit. This would make the cost of ownership several times higher per firearm. The gun itself, is about 3 times more expensive than a 'normal handgun' of similar type as it is.
The reason guns are preferred for self-defense isn't long distance reasons, most real life gun encounters happen is less than 15ft. proximity.
The main reason guns are preferred for self-defense has everything to do with the fact that they are the great "equalizer" when it comes to dealing with attackers. If you're a 5ft. 110lb female and are getting attacked by a 6'2" 250lb man, is it a fair fight even if you have a knife (or sword)? Many would agree that it still wouldn't be a fair fight, and that woman would still be at a disadvantage. Same with an 70 year old elderly person, who doesn't have the strength or stamina to get in a physical altercation with or without a knife or sword.
Guns are an equalizer, they put everyone on a level playing field -- it doesn't matter if you are elderly, crippled, weaker or not physically fit, if you have use a firearm for self defense, you are on an equal playing field with your attacker (or maybe have an advantage if they aren't armed).
Considering gun owners are more likely to get shot by their own gun than shoot an intruder, I'd consider this a win.
Citation please... that is a myth. Can you back up your claim?
Here is my citation that what you claim is pure malarkey. http://gunowners.org/sk0701.ht...
Sure, but why does every vehicle have to work for *everybody*?
I hear you, I'm not against different cars for different peoples needs. People's needs are different, and they have every right to get what works best for them at the time, and what works best for them may change as different phases of their life come and go. That's why we have everything from motorcycles to heavy duty pick-up trucks to choose from.
The only caveat and complaint I have, is this holds true as long as the government isn't trying to force these things on the rest of us...either indirectly by offset incentives, discounts for power, free charging stations -or directly- by setting un-realistic mandated CAFE requirements on the manufactures (which forces the auto makers to make more of the tiny tonka toy cars (like the Yaris) and less of the other kinds) thus limiting the supply (and driving the costs up) for other alternatives like sports cars and SUV's.
Because one of the main factors when a lot of people buy cars, is looks. The other being performance. If not, then sports cars would not be a viable market. I would never buy a fugly car, no matter how many MPG's it got, and I'm not the only one.