If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).
Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.
Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.
Precisely.
One has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, very much so; however, if there isn't an actual fire, the person yelling it is violating everyone else's right to life.
I think people take that whole "you don't have a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing entirely to literally, which leads to other, nonsense misinterpretations.
So, you read an article about one model of one brand of gun safe that was fundamentally flawed, and extrapolate that to include every model of every brand of gun safe?
It is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. First, you ban large magazines. Another shooting, Then, you ban all semi-auto firearms. Another shooting. Time to ban them all! This is a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands.
It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.
The fact that Japan has almost no guns in private hands, yet maintains one of the highest suicide rates in the world, kinda destroys your gun-suicide link premise.
Considering that said Google search provides no cite-able sources outside extremist, left-wing blogs, I would probably refrain from using the term in the future if I were you.
That is, unless you want to be viewed as a sociopath.
It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually"
Where else in the Constitution is the term "the People" used, where it doesn't refer to individual citizens? FYI, the correct answer is "nowhere."
...nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.
Right, and the First Amendment only referred to quill pens and printing presses, so I guess that means you don't think people have a right to free speech online?
And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.
Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?
Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.
But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.
Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case?
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
Guns aren't banned in NYC. Just very heavily regulated and restricted. Unless you can provide a very good reason, you will not be able to get a license to carry.
I presume "Because the murderous Stasi you refer to as the NYPD carry them" isn't considered a good reason?
Too bad - if the OWS kids packed as much heat as Tea Party protesters do, I doubt the NYPD would have kicked the living shit out of them so thoroughly.
The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man.
Still is, as a matter of fact. The only term in that sentence whose meaning has changed in the last 250+ years is "well-regulated."
"Arms" is still a generic term for "armaments," "State" still refers to the individual states, and "The People" still refers to individuals. Amazing that certain "well-educated liberals" don't know that. Guess they should have studied harder.
Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.
Really? What does "well-regulated" mean?
In 1770's terminology? Properly functioning.
For example, a "well-regulated" clock keeps the time correctly.
Playing Starcraft competitively for five years could easily be described by saying you "competed professionally in strategy tournaments", and when accompanied by a short description of the primary skills you excelled in (resource management, risk mitigation, public relations), it becomes a very positive credential.
That is, until the potential employer asks where you worked when you developed those skills, and the flop sweat starts appearing on your brow as you scramble to come up with a better answer than "my mom's basement."
Half the curriculum in High School is far from important anyway. At least this is useful to the small segment of the population that can make a living off it.
... and useless, if not harmful, for the large segment of the population who thinks they can make a living at it, but in reality are merely wasting time. Time better spent learning real, useful life skills.
Useful life skills like memorizing Chaucer.
Your opinion of one thing you had to do in school that you didn't like nor found useful notwithstanding...
I was thinking more along the lines of things like Grammar, Science, Civics, Mathematics, et al. My bad for assuming that I didn't need to spell that out to this particular crowd.
I presumed we were collectively smarter than that, this being a "News for Nerds" site, and I apologize for overestimating the intelligence level of the group.
Seriously, who is upvoting this guy's blog posts in the firehose? Or does he have some dirt on the editors? Can't figure out why these BS BH posts keep making it to the front page...
While we're at it, lets get rid of English and Art classes as well.
Judging from the majority of commentary I see these days, both online and in traditional media, we need English classes more now than ever. Art has already been shuffled to the wayside thanks to the ever-increasing funding "needs" of athletic programs.
The class they need to make required is some sort of home-finance class. The biggest problem with recent high-school grads is their complete lack of understanding when it comes to credit cards, loans, insurance and retirement.
Agreed, that's a major issue, and I find it both amazing and appalling that such a class hasn't been made mandatory yet - we were bitching about the lack of personal finance education over a decade ago, when I was still in high school.
It's likely that the best approach is actually a combination of the two – use a drone to position your camera in the path of the tornado. Then you don't have the usual problem of it being *really* dangerous to try and position the cameras there.
Aw, but the danger is half the fun of storm-chasing!
Half the curriculum in High School is far from important anyway. At least this is useful to the small segment of the population that can make a living off it.
... and useless, if not harmful, for the large segment of the population who thinks they can make a living at it, but in reality are merely wasting time. Time better spent learning real, useful life skills.
When the African-Americans were allowed to compete with whites, many did well and disturbed some people's idea that white people were superior. So, they (racist whites) made up the lie that really talented atletic people are stupid - as an attack on Black people.
That doesn't explain why the majority of athletes at my old high school back home, which was populated 99.999% with white kids, were abject morons who slept through class and still got B's. They didn't learn shit, because they didn't have to; race had nothing to do with it*.
Seriously, I remember one guy, the "star" lineman for our terrible, terrible football team, who graduated without being able to spell anything other than his own name.
* The black kid (no, really, we only had the one) was actually a very smart dude, and a killer athlete to boot. Pretty sure he teaches now.
Slashdot Mirror
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).
Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.
Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.
Precisely.
One has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, very much so; however, if there isn't an actual fire, the person yelling it is violating everyone else's right to life.
I think people take that whole "you don't have a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing entirely to literally, which leads to other, nonsense misinterpretations.
And what do you suggest to properly securing your guns? So called gun safes are not actually all that safe.
So, you read an article about one model of one brand of gun safe that was fundamentally flawed, and extrapolate that to include every model of every brand of gun safe?
Your high school science teacher must be ashamed.
It is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. First, you ban large magazines. Another shooting, Then, you ban all semi-auto firearms. Another shooting. Time to ban them all! This is a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands.
It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.
The NFA happened.
The Brady Bill happened.
Diane Feinstein happened.
The fact that Japan has almost no guns in private hands, yet maintains one of the highest suicide rates in the world, kinda destroys your gun-suicide link premise.
There's no Constitutional right to drive a car.
Kinda different.
Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."
Considering that said Google search provides no cite-able sources outside extremist, left-wing blogs, I would probably refrain from using the term in the future if I were you.
That is, unless you want to be viewed as a sociopath.
It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually"
Where else in the Constitution is the term "the People" used, where it doesn't refer to individual citizens? FYI, the correct answer is "nowhere."
...nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.
Right, and the First Amendment only referred to quill pens and printing presses, so I guess that means you don't think people have a right to free speech online?
And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.
Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?
Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.
But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.
Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case?
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone?
As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."
A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.
You realize that, when the Constitution was written, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," not "wrapped in red tape," don't you?
Etymology - it matters.
Guns aren't banned in NYC. Just very heavily regulated and restricted. Unless you can provide a very good reason, you will not be able to get a license to carry.
I presume "Because the murderous Stasi you refer to as the NYPD carry them" isn't considered a good reason?
Too bad - if the OWS kids packed as much heat as Tea Party protesters do, I doubt the NYPD would have kicked the living shit out of them so thoroughly.
The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man.
Still is, as a matter of fact. The only term in that sentence whose meaning has changed in the last 250+ years is "well-regulated."
"Arms" is still a generic term for "armaments," "State" still refers to the individual states, and "The People" still refers to individuals. Amazing that certain "well-educated liberals" don't know that. Guess they should have studied harder.
Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.
Really? What does "well-regulated" mean?
In 1770's terminology? Properly functioning.
For example, a "well-regulated" clock keeps the time correctly.
... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.
Aye, because an anti-gun nut would never stoop to outing the personal information of gun owners for malicious purposes...
I think the lesson here is that regardless of what side you take in a particular debate, somewhere out there a lunatic jackass agrees with you.
Playing Starcraft competitively for five years could easily be described by saying you "competed professionally in strategy tournaments", and when accompanied by a short description of the primary skills you excelled in (resource management, risk mitigation, public relations), it becomes a very positive credential.
That is, until the potential employer asks where you worked when you developed those skills, and the flop sweat starts appearing on your brow as you scramble to come up with a better answer than "my mom's basement."
Half the curriculum in High School is far from important anyway. At least this is useful to the small segment of the population that can make a living off it.
... and useless, if not harmful, for the large segment of the population who thinks they can make a living at it, but in reality are merely wasting time. Time better spent learning real, useful life skills.
Useful life skills like memorizing Chaucer.
Your opinion of one thing you had to do in school that you didn't like nor found useful notwithstanding...
I was thinking more along the lines of things like Grammar, Science, Civics, Mathematics, et al. My bad for assuming that I didn't need to spell that out to this particular crowd.
I presumed we were collectively smarter than that, this being a "News for Nerds" site, and I apologize for overestimating the intelligence level of the group.
Because they make more money that way, doofus.
Seriously, who is upvoting this guy's blog posts in the firehose? Or does he have some dirt on the editors? Can't figure out why these BS BH posts keep making it to the front page...
While we're at it, lets get rid of English and Art classes as well.
Judging from the majority of commentary I see these days, both online and in traditional media, we need English classes more now than ever. Art has already been shuffled to the wayside thanks to the ever-increasing funding "needs" of athletic programs.
The class they need to make required is some sort of home-finance class. The biggest problem with recent high-school grads is their complete lack of understanding when it comes to credit cards, loans, insurance and retirement.
Agreed, that's a major issue, and I find it both amazing and appalling that such a class hasn't been made mandatory yet - we were bitching about the lack of personal finance education over a decade ago, when I was still in high school.
IMO, it's never too late to stop fucking up.
It's likely that the best approach is actually a combination of the two – use a drone to position your camera in the path of the tornado. Then you don't have the usual problem of it being *really* dangerous to try and position the cameras there.
Aw, but the danger is half the fun of storm-chasing!
Half the curriculum in High School is far from important anyway. At least this is useful to the small segment of the population that can make a living off it.
... and useless, if not harmful, for the large segment of the population who thinks they can make a living at it, but in reality are merely wasting time. Time better spent learning real, useful life skills.
When the African-Americans were allowed to compete with whites, many did well and disturbed some people's idea that white people were superior. So, they (racist whites) made up the lie that really talented atletic people are stupid - as an attack on Black people.
That doesn't explain why the majority of athletes at my old high school back home, which was populated 99.999% with white kids, were abject morons who slept through class and still got B's. They didn't learn shit, because they didn't have to; race had nothing to do with it*.
Seriously, I remember one guy, the "star" lineman for our terrible, terrible football team, who graduated without being able to spell anything other than his own name.
* The black kid (no, really, we only had the one) was actually a very smart dude, and a killer athlete to boot. Pretty sure he teaches now.
Thanks for the info, I was hoping someone in the know would come and dispel my ignorance.