Switzerland where that are over a million of what in the US would be considered "assault weapons" in private hands according to wiki, and there is no threat to society. What is different between the US and Switzerland? The Swiss have proper background checks, proper safety training and proper storage.
... and a much smaller population, and far less racially-charged rhetoric on the public stage, and a culture of 'every citizen is responsible for their own safety and freedom,' a significant lack of biased, partisan propaganda designed to divide the population against each other, as well as a host of other notable differences...
Not to say there aren't things we could learn and incorporate for our own good; the idea of mandatory firearms training for all citizens, beginning at an early age, would likely cut the accidental death rate by a significant percentage and therefore should be in consideration... But that wouldn't be acceptable to the gun-grabbers, who claim they care for the lives of children but really only care about their own sense of safety.
Defensive homicides? You mean like when family members accidentally shoot each other because the think someone is breaking into the house?
No, jackass, that's called an 'accidental death.' He means defensive homicides. You know, like, when someone tries to kill you but you manage to kill them first?
You're obviously being disingenuous, as anyone capable of cogent thought can easily parse the difference between the two. Or maybe I'm overestimating your ability to reason.
Having a valid argument is one thing, but you don't really seem to be in possession of anything but factless anecdotes, ad hominem attacks, and general ignorance.
And pray thee, why would your average thug want to actually beat you to death? Rob you, sure. Knock you out maybe. Run up a murder charge, when your intent was just robbery?
Yet you try to imply that a criminal with a gun has no such compunction, and will shoot their victims dead merely by virtue of their weapon of choice (because, apparently, guns are magical and can control human thought):
f I was a criminal, instead of checking the local state laws, I would simply opt to shoot you dead
You are consistent only in your lack of consistency.
Exactly. Perhaps even it could be used by F2P model games ("Enable our bitcoin miner tool and we will credit you for in-game purchases periodically!") as an alternative to paying in cash.
You know, if it was an equal exchange (in-game credit equal to cash value of Bitcoins mined), I might actually go for it.
However, considering the track record of various "reward points" programs, I'm going to guess it won't be an even exchange. Never is.
Until very recently Government America used males (exclusively) for cannon fodder about once a generation. Be thankful the worse you'll ever face is a paid-leave time off disparity.
Don't speak too soon, I'm still eligible for selective service.
Or don't. Farming internet karma with 10+ poasts a day (!) when you're supposed to be actually earning your salary is much more fun.
What evidence have you that I don't? None? Alright then; go sit on it, asshat.
In general, dads are considered minor parenting figures. It's alright if they're around, but the mom is the official parent and knows much more by virtue of being female.
That is, until he's not around.
Then he's "that deadbeat loser who couldn't handle the responsibility he brought upon himself."
Not that I'm defending fathers who abandon their families, just pointing out yet another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect of the issue.
At least, that's how Corporate America seems intent on treating male parents.
Society, too - basically, if you have a penis, you are considered tertiary to the rearing of a child. Look at custody battles - The mother is given the benefit of the doubt almost without exception. Case in point, my ex-sister-in-law has documented psychosis, multiple suicide attempts on her record, and a known history of violent behavior, whereas my brothers record is sterling; yet she was given damn near full custody of my nephew anyway.
One has to wonder if the unbalanced treatment of fathers in our society has anything to do with the number of them who bail on their spouses/offspring...
I'm sorry, could you re-write this post in something resembling common English sentence structure? Namely the first and third sentences; I can't parse what you're trying to say.
I never said anything about "naive idealism," I specifically stated that your contention is an example of theoretical idealism - that is, a great idea in theory, but not reflective of actual practice. That you took it as an insult is a result of your personal hangups, not mine.
Now, if you can somehow give example of how the economic theory you've posited, where half the population is put out of a job and somehow there is no negative effect on the economy as a whole, is utilized in an actual economy, please do; I'd be glad to read it.
Wholly untrue. Or do you think most humans are incapable of even walking and chewing at the same time?
You misunderstand the meaning of the term, 'multitasking.' it has little to do with physical actions, and everything to do with ability to focus on a task.
I.e., when driving you must work the pedals with your feet and simultaneously turn the wheel with your hands; however, it is next to impossible to focus on the task of driving while simultaneously focusing on some other task, such as talking on a phone or eating.
There's plenty of science to back my assertion; Google the term, "Multitasking myth" (sans quotes)
Of course your driving performance is going to be degraded if you're reading screens and pushing buttons,'
See, shit like this is why the Prophet Hicks was so adamant in his belief that advertising people should do the world a favor and kill themselves.
FYI, asshole, it's an issue because humans cannot multitask, and every second you pay attention to that goddamn toy is one more second you're not paying attention to the road.
Perhaps Mr. My-Sales-Figures-Are-More-Important-Than-Your-Safety should read the stacks upon stacks of other studies that prove any distraction from driving is dangerous. Even talking to the guy in the passenger seat.
I just picked up an AT Titan Commander model myself, and noted that it, too, has redundant safeties:
- a half-cock safety (you never see those anymore! Love it!) - a 'beaver-tail' (grip) safety - a slide-lock safety (physical bar that locks the slide in place)
But they don't cycle with each round fired, as OP suggests.
I am curious:
the manual safety, which cycles every time I pull the gun from the holster
How does that work? Or is "pull the gun from the holster" to imply that you manually release the safety at the same time?
Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland where that are over a million of what in the US would be considered "assault weapons" in private hands according to wiki, and there is no threat to society. What is different between the US and Switzerland? The Swiss have proper background checks, proper safety training and proper storage.
... and a much smaller population, and far less racially-charged rhetoric on the public stage, and a culture of 'every citizen is responsible for their own safety and freedom,' a significant lack of biased, partisan propaganda designed to divide the population against each other, as well as a host of other notable differences...
Not to say there aren't things we could learn and incorporate for our own good; the idea of mandatory firearms training for all citizens, beginning at an early age, would likely cut the accidental death rate by a significant percentage and therefore should be in consideration... But that wouldn't be acceptable to the gun-grabbers, who claim they care for the lives of children but really only care about their own sense of safety.
Defensive homicides? You mean like when family members accidentally shoot each other because the think someone is breaking into the house?
No, jackass, that's called an 'accidental death.' He means defensive homicides. You know, like, when someone tries to kill you but you manage to kill them first?
You're obviously being disingenuous, as anyone capable of cogent thought can easily parse the difference between the two. Or maybe I'm overestimating your ability to reason.
Having a valid argument is one thing, but you don't really seem to be in possession of anything but factless anecdotes, ad hominem attacks, and general ignorance.
Interestingly, I live in Europe and have yet to be killed by the roaming death-squads that are apparently rampant here.
Equally interesting, I've lived in the midwestern USA for my entire life, and have yet to be so much as looked at funny, let alone shot at.
Anecdote for Anecdote, we cancel each other out.
And pray thee, why would your average thug want to actually beat you to death? Rob you, sure. Knock you out maybe. Run up a murder charge, when your intent was just robbery?
Yet you try to imply that a criminal with a gun has no such compunction, and will shoot their victims dead merely by virtue of their weapon of choice (because, apparently, guns are magical and can control human thought):
You are consistent only in your lack of consistency.
Especially for the old, weak, or handicapped? When they show up in the house? When they are a gang?
You're right. I'm going to have to watch out for those gangs of old, handicapped burglars showing up in my house.
Alright, give us all the Viagra and Geritol, and nobody gets hurt...
So... is that your example? Or are you still too locked in to "argument mode" to have a discussion about the topic?
Exactly. Perhaps even it could be used by F2P model games ("Enable our bitcoin miner tool and we will credit you for in-game purchases periodically!") as an alternative to paying in cash.
You know, if it was an equal exchange (in-game credit equal to cash value of Bitcoins mined), I might actually go for it.
However, considering the track record of various "reward points" programs, I'm going to guess it won't be an even exchange. Never is.
Another damn fine reason not to have any!
Until very recently Government America used males (exclusively) for cannon fodder about once a generation. Be thankful the worse you'll ever face is a paid-leave time off disparity.
Don't speak too soon, I'm still eligible for selective service.
Or don't. Farming internet karma with 10+ poasts a day (!) when you're supposed to be actually earning your salary is much more fun.
What evidence have you that I don't? None? Alright then; go sit on it, asshat.
That all came after; pretty sure she was just looking for a sugar daddy, and once she realized he wasn't it, Mrs. Hyde came out to play.
Can you really be sure his judgement is that much better?
You ever been in love, or thought you were? "Best judgement" doesn't typically describe folks in that state of mind.
In general, dads are considered minor parenting figures. It's alright if they're around, but the mom is the official parent and knows much more by virtue of being female.
That is, until he's not around.
Then he's "that deadbeat loser who couldn't handle the responsibility he brought upon himself."
Not that I'm defending fathers who abandon their families, just pointing out yet another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" aspect of the issue.
Men are usually more violent.
Watch it, or I'll kick your ass!
At least, that's how Corporate America seems intent on treating male parents.
Society, too - basically, if you have a penis, you are considered tertiary to the rearing of a child. Look at custody battles - The mother is given the benefit of the doubt almost without exception. Case in point, my ex-sister-in-law has documented psychosis, multiple suicide attempts on her record, and a known history of violent behavior, whereas my brothers record is sterling; yet she was given damn near full custody of my nephew anyway.
One has to wonder if the unbalanced treatment of fathers in our society has anything to do with the number of them who bail on their spouses/offspring...
I'm sorry, could you re-write this post in something resembling common English sentence structure? Namely the first and third sentences; I can't parse what you're trying to say.
I never said anything about "naive idealism," I specifically stated that your contention is an example of theoretical idealism - that is, a great idea in theory, but not reflective of actual practice. That you took it as an insult is a result of your personal hangups, not mine.
Now, if you can somehow give example of how the economic theory you've posited, where half the population is put out of a job and somehow there is no negative effect on the economy as a whole, is utilized in an actual economy, please do; I'd be glad to read it.
Why did you run if you had nothing to hide?
Aaww, he must think that governments never go on witch hunts!
Such naïveté would be funny, if it weren't so dangerous.
Yeah if they're looking to inspire non-government investors, this is a horrible first step.
FTFY.
DoD has a nasty habit of playing fast and loose with the purse strings.
OK, well, I was hoping for an intelligent response. Had I known all you had left to offer was childish insults, I wouldn't have wasted my time.
Shame, that.
I would prefer a power cable. Put the battery in my pocket.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Has no one at Google ever used a lav mic?
Such a low id
Au contraire, my id is quite active and often in control.
^
Ha, Freudian rimshot, where the cymbal hit is replaced by your mother.
Until I ask you to stop
Fuck asking, I'm getting t-shirts printed up:
By recording this person, you consent to him kicking the holy living shit out of you.
Hey, it works for EULAs...
Wholly untrue.
Or do you think most humans are incapable of even walking and chewing at the same time?
You misunderstand the meaning of the term, 'multitasking.' it has little to do with physical actions, and everything to do with ability to focus on a task.
I.e., when driving you must work the pedals with your feet and simultaneously turn the wheel with your hands; however, it is next to impossible to focus on the task of driving while simultaneously focusing on some other task, such as talking on a phone or eating.
There's plenty of science to back my assertion; Google the term, "Multitasking myth" (sans quotes)
Of course your driving performance is going to be degraded if you're reading screens and pushing buttons,'
See, shit like this is why the Prophet Hicks was so adamant in his belief that advertising people should do the world a favor and kill themselves.
FYI, asshole, it's an issue because humans cannot multitask, and every second you pay attention to that goddamn toy is one more second you're not paying attention to the road.
Perhaps Mr. My-Sales-Figures-Are-More-Important-Than-Your-Safety should read the stacks upon stacks of other studies that prove any distraction from driving is dangerous. Even talking to the guy in the passenger seat.
... no one in the physics community really expects the answer to be "they fall up" at this point. It would be a huge upset if they did.
To the physicists, maybe.
For the rest of us... SUPERPOWERS!!!
I just picked up an AT Titan Commander model myself, and noted that it, too, has redundant safeties:
- a half-cock safety (you never see those anymore! Love it!)
- a 'beaver-tail' (grip) safety
- a slide-lock safety (physical bar that locks the slide in place)
But they don't cycle with each round fired, as OP suggests.
I am curious:
the manual safety, which cycles every time I pull the gun from the holster
How does that work? Or is "pull the gun from the holster" to imply that you manually release the safety at the same time?