The only reason violence trends in genetics is because you *tend* to learn your violence level from the same people you get your genes from.
I disagree; judging from nature in general, a tendency towards violence is a survival trait. All living things are in constant competition with one another for a limited amount of resources and space; thus, those that survive do so because their violence was more effective than the violence of those they competed against.
Treyvon has already been punished for his mistake, and rather harshly if I do say so myself (makes me think - if I ever have a son, I hope to teach him that if he's stalked/confronted like Martin was, to immediately come get home and get me so I can properly handle the situation. Also, report the stalker to the cops).
Zimmerman will likely still face punishment despite not being found criminally guilty, due to the way civil law works in the USA (the OJ Simpson trial is a perfect example: acquitted of criminal charges, subsequently bankrupted by the victim's families). That is, assuming a lynch mob doesn't find him first.
No the three strikes rule should be you lose your IP to the public domain. If you cannot be trusted to not claim ownership of other peoples property, you should lose your right to claim copyright at all.
We take a felons right to vote (without a doubt a more important right) so why can't we take away their copy right.
I live in the Netherlands, which is probably similar to being on MSN in this case. I really didn't know all that. But why did he shoot the guy then?
Because "the guy," Trayvon Martin, was beating the shit out of him, and IMO he (Zimmerman) is one of those gung-ho cop wannabe's... who happened to be armed that night. Like I said before, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
P.S. I said MSM, which is an abbreviation for "MainStream Media," of which MSN is but a small part.
if you are irresponsible then you should not have a gun. if you dont know if you are responsible enough to own a gun then you are not.
I agree, the problem is who gets to device who is responsible and who isn't? One common trait of idiots is that they think they know what they are doing. If the government administered some kind of test there would be outrage. Maybe the gun shop owner?
Close; I would tolerate it if private clubs that experienced absolutely zero interference from the federal government were in charge of deciding who can and cannot keep/bear firearms.
You are a bully/coward, and gun ownership is fundamental to your violent fantasies.
Coming from a passive-aggressive who is obviously attempting to demonize someone else's position by means of psychological abuse, that's super fucking funny.
I would say, based on the fact that, over the millennia, millions, billions, even trillions of people have given up their lives and safety in the mere pursuit of liberty pretty much gives you your answer: No.
I don't trust the technology to not have some kind of back door making the firearm able to be disabled, even when I'm the keyed owner and I pull the trigger.
This is entirely possible. An EMP directed at your smart gun may very well disable it.
Hell, you don't even need to get that fancy, a simple noise generator set to whatever frequency the RFID's operate on would suffice if you pump enough juice through it.
Not to mention, if other technology is any indication, you and I both know the government will require manufacturers to build in a secret backdoor disable code that LEOs can transmit remotely, completely defeating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
It's simple: anyone saying so is deliberately lying because they place an inordinately low value on the availability of centuries old self defense mechanisms, or insist we all depend on government. They don't care that their line of arguing weakens their entire point through dishonesty.
Hey, look - the street of hyperbolic argument! She runs both directions!
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly.
Really? Care to duel? Since you seem to be under the impression that absolutely no skill is required to guide a round to its intended target, it should be a fair battle, regardless of the fact that I'm proven marksman and you are likely not.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Ah, but such things don't really happen except in our paranoid imaginations.
Your example, yea. I provided a citation.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively no different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
As is cogent, rational thought free of emotional bias, apparently.
You ask us to assume that a gun is the same as any other weapon.
Excuse me, perhaps you do not know what a gun is.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Or a middle aged man who's got a grudge against black youngsters who are clearly unarmed.
Ah,yes, the George Zimmerman circus, er, trial.
MSM zombie, I take it? I presume that's why you're still maintaining that it was a racially charged assault, even though Zimmerman: - Took a black girl to his prom (and at least tried to bang her, if my prom night is any indication of the standard), - started a business with a black friend, - helped tutor a couple of black kids, and - has black siblings
Not that I'm defending him (personally, I think he was a man who was looking for trouble and found it), but it was quite obviously not racially motivated. So... stop it.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user.
Surely you realize this is also true of a lot of other devices, and that for some of those devices neither purchase nor ownership is restricted by law? Pretty much any tool running on gasoline or electricity is capable of seriously maiming people without effort.
My 5th grade teacher had a potato gun he made, that could punch a frozen orange completely through a 3/4" sheet of plyboard at 50 yards. Using nothing more than PVC tubing and a can of AquaNet.
He kept that deadly weapon in the classrom, and it was one of the best years of school I can remember.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason violence trends in genetics is because you *tend* to learn your violence level from the same people you get your genes from.
I disagree; judging from nature in general, a tendency towards violence is a survival trait. All living things are in constant competition with one another for a limited amount of resources and space; thus, those that survive do so because their violence was more effective than the violence of those they competed against.
Is the subject human? If yes, then they have a predisposition towards violence.
Treyvon has already been punished for his mistake, and rather harshly if I do say so myself (makes me think - if I ever have a son, I hope to teach him that if he's stalked/confronted like Martin was, to immediately come get home and get me so I can properly handle the situation. Also, report the stalker to the cops).
Zimmerman will likely still face punishment despite not being found criminally guilty, due to the way civil law works in the USA (the OJ Simpson trial is a perfect example: acquitted of criminal charges, subsequently bankrupted by the victim's families). That is, assuming a lynch mob doesn't find him first.
You mean, the same NSA/CIA that wastes time logging the communications of every single human on the planet?
No the three strikes rule should be you lose your IP to the public domain. If you cannot be trusted to not claim ownership of other peoples property, you should lose your right to claim copyright at all.
We take a felons right to vote (without a doubt a more important right) so why can't we take away their copy right.
Now there's an idea I can put my John Hancock on!
So what you are saying is that the irresponsible idiots would have to band together and form a club?
Unless one of the voices in your head sounds like me... no.
Come back when you have a real argument and not just hyperbole.
I live in the Netherlands, which is probably similar to being on MSN in this case. I really didn't know all that. But why did he shoot the guy then?
Because "the guy," Trayvon Martin, was beating the shit out of him, and IMO he (Zimmerman) is one of those gung-ho cop wannabe's... who happened to be armed that night. Like I said before, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
P.S. I said MSM, which is an abbreviation for "MainStream Media," of which MSN is but a small part.
If there is even a 0.1% chance the gun will refuse to fire at that critical time when I need it to, it is not a safer gun.
Well, that's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? No, it's not safer for you, but for all the rapists, muggers, psychopaths, gang bangers, etc...
Thus, it's obvious that anyone supporting "smart guns" puts more value on the lives of criminals than they do on yours.
if you are irresponsible then you should not have a gun. if you dont know if you are responsible enough to own a gun then you are not.
I agree, the problem is who gets to device who is responsible and who isn't? One common trait of idiots is that they think they know what they are doing. If the government administered some kind of test there would be outrage. Maybe the gun shop owner?
Close; I would tolerate it if private clubs that experienced absolutely zero interference from the federal government were in charge of deciding who can and cannot keep/bear firearms.
Of course, that will never friggin' happen.
before someone tries to compare it to owning a car, i would like to point out that a gun is specifically for killing.
And yet more people die in/because of cars, every day, than guns.
Makes ya think... at least, it should.
Good point, arms DRM! Man, the NRA should be lobbying for this HARD!
If the NRA was the pro-gun-manufacturer lobby like the anti-gun groups insist, they would be.
Food for thought.
You are a bully/coward, and gun ownership is fundamental to your violent fantasies.
Coming from a passive-aggressive who is obviously attempting to demonize someone else's position by means of psychological abuse, that's super fucking funny.
Yes there is: Shooting in the air.
Ah, OK... looks like someone's never heard of gravity...
My dad took me ground squirrel hunting... with a 30-06.
Gruesome yet effective... and, let's face it, pretty damn funny to boot.
He was a horrible parent. Any good parent would have kept the guns locked up in a nice safe. So yea, natural selection.
Plus, had his child not been killed, we would all be slaves to the Gua'uld.
Hey, at least the debate would be settled.
Some people, just can't make 'em happy... XD
Is life and safety more important than liberty.
I would say, based on the fact that, over the millennia, millions, billions, even trillions of people have given up their lives and safety in the mere pursuit of liberty pretty much gives you your answer: No.
The feeling is mutual.
Wait - you mean machines have feelings now?
Shit, I figured we had a few more good years before Skynet...
This is entirely possible. An EMP directed at your smart gun may very well disable it.
Hell, you don't even need to get that fancy, a simple noise generator set to whatever frequency the RFID's operate on would suffice if you pump enough juice through it.
Not to mention, if other technology is any indication, you and I both know the government will require manufacturers to build in a secret backdoor disable code that LEOs can transmit remotely, completely defeating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
But to me, mine are kept in a safe that is secured to the floor in my house - they aren't getting stolen, so that doesn't concern me.
Until you get killed by a stolen gun.
Presuming OP isn't a gang banger or dope dealer, the chances of that happening are statistically insignificant.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
It's simple: anyone saying so is deliberately lying because they place an inordinately low value on the availability of centuries old self defense mechanisms, or insist we all depend on government. They don't care that their line of arguing weakens their entire point through dishonesty.
Hey, look - the street of hyperbolic argument! She runs both directions!
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly.
Really? Care to duel? Since you seem to be under the impression that absolutely no skill is required to guide a round to its intended target, it should be a fair battle, regardless of the fact that I'm proven marksman and you are likely not.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Or, you know, my 5'8", 130 lb wife fending off a 6'3" 240 lb rapist.... or a 10-year-old child scaring off home invaders
Ah, but such things don't really happen except in our paranoid imaginations.
Your example, yea. I provided a citation.
How anyone in his right mind can imply that such a device is qualitatively no different than, say, a baseball bat or a straight razor is simply beyond me.
As is cogent, rational thought free of emotional bias, apparently.
You ask us to assume that a gun is the same as any other weapon.
Excuse me, perhaps you do not know what a gun is.
A gun is a device that is pretty much guaranteed to maim or kill--with a single use--a selected target, at a distance and almost instantly. It requires almost no real physical effort on the part of the user. Multiple uses can be accomplished pretty much as quickly as you can point, squeeze your finger, release, and point again.
This works really well for cancelling out advantages of size/weight/strength such as otherwise might be of concern to... I dunno... say, a skinny 16-year-old kid who's got a very big grudge against a high school teachers' lounge full of adults half again as big as he is.
Or a middle aged man who's got a grudge against black youngsters who are clearly unarmed.
Ah,yes, the George Zimmerman circus, er, trial.
MSM zombie, I take it? I presume that's why you're still maintaining that it was a racially charged assault, even though Zimmerman:
- Took a black girl to his prom (and at least tried to bang her, if my prom night is any indication of the standard),
- started a business with a black friend,
- helped tutor a couple of black kids, and
- has black siblings
http://www.examiner.com/article/ignored-by-media-zimmerman-voted-for-obama-tutored-black-kids (was also reported on NPR this very morning)
Not that I'm defending him (personally, I think he was a man who was looking for trouble and found it), but it was quite obviously not racially motivated. So... stop it.
Surely you realize this is also true of a lot of other devices, and that for some of those devices neither purchase nor ownership is restricted by law?
Pretty much any tool running on gasoline or electricity is capable of seriously maiming people without effort.
My 5th grade teacher had a potato gun he made, that could punch a frozen orange completely through a 3/4" sheet of plyboard at 50 yards. Using nothing more than PVC tubing and a can of AquaNet.
He kept that deadly weapon in the classrom, and it was one of the best years of school I can remember.
Mentally ill and developmentally retarded (in the literal sense) can have diminished capacity, much like a minor.
Unfortunately that doesn't help us with the case in question as the guy has been certified as suffering from a mental illness (PTSD).
Alright, then I guess he gets a pass.
So you're in favor of laws requiring us to be frightened and offended at all times?
Crack or booze? I can't fathom that someone would have such a blindingly idiotic thought whilst sober.