Do the cops conceal themselves at all. The majority don't. We don't know they are police because they strap gun on their waist. We know they are a cop because they wear a uniform. The ones that don't wear uniforms also conceal their weapons. Why is that?
Given that we have had no mass shootings in the US in the past few decades where guns are not clearly banned, it is actually safe to assume that a certain class of criminal is actually thinking about where to commit crimes. The one or two we've had in places that didn't ban guns were stopped before they became mass shootings because someone was carrying a concealed gun.
No, the reality of the situation was that criminals realized that many more non-criminals would now be carrying guns and so the odds of targetting an unarmed victim decreased dramatically.
Your stupid comment about the police concealing their weapons would only make sense if 1) the vast majority of police were also plainclothes and 2) there were as many police as there are non-police. Since neither of those apply, then your little ranting is pointless or as you put it "a gross insult to intelligence."
But please keep trying because you just may get lucky enough one day to have a rational thought. They say that if you give enough monkeys enough time and enough typewriters that those monkeys will be able to reproduce the works of Shakespeare so you too have hope.
You mean 1/500th what the CEO makes. 500 times less than the CEO would mean that the burger flipper is paying the CEO 500 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers or something like that. It is difficult to get the equation exactly right because it is a bogus concept. Maybe the burger flipper only pays 499 CEO-salaries. Let's see... The CEO makes 1 CEO-salary and 500 times that is 500 CEO-salaries and so the burger flipper makes 500 CEO-salaries less than the CEO so we have 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = 1 CEO-salary - 500 CEO-salary => 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = -499 CEO-salary. So, I guess Mr. Burger Flipper is actually paying McDonalds 499 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers at McDonalds. No wonder McDonalds remains profitable. Remind me that when i retire and supplement my income at Mickey-Ds to work the counter instead of flipping burgers; i hear that McDonalds actually pays the counter workers.
In reality, I know the owner of what we could call a burger joint franchise and he made less money over the past two years than some of his employees. Granted, he is paying himself a very low wage for the first two years of being an owner in order to pay down the $1.5 million dollars of loan he needed to open the business but who cares about that. It just sounds better to say that everybody running a business is an asshole and that it takes nothing to run a business.
According to wikipedia: "Ballistic nylon was originally developed by the DuPont corporation as a material for flak jackets to be worn by World War II airmen. The term ballistic nylon takes its name from the fact that it was intended to protect its wearers from flying debris and fragmentation caused by bullet or artillery shell impacts."
Well, you know, the fear of being swatted by some liberal cry-baby is not exactly an indicator of being mentally unbalanced as a prominent gun control advocacy group in the US, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, has asked people to do exactly that and it apparently caused the death of a man in Colorado who was attempting to buy a pellet gun in a store that sells pellet guns.
So, yes, being afraid of being killed for simply minding your own business does not make one mentally unbalanced, it makes one prudent.
So, you are opposed to allowing a person who does not drink to carry into a restaurant where others may be drinking. Are you against concealed carry in general? If not, why would a non-drinker (if even for the evening) carrying in a bar/restaurant (almost one and the same here in Wisconsin) be any different than the same person carrying in a public campground or public park where other people are drinking beers with their brats and burgers?
That is exactly the proper reaction to have. As the retired police officer who taught my concealed carry permit course said to the class when asked how strictly are the "Please don't carry in here" signs enforced: "Concealed carry means concealed and if you are doing it properly who will anybody else know you are carrying?" Yes, he was retired but his job was training college students to become police officers. Many, probably the majority, of police officers are actually proponents of non-LEOs carrying.
14,000? Where the hell did that number come from? Total gun deaths in the US are around 30,000 a year for the past decade or so with 20,000 of them being suicides and 8,000-9,000 being gang or other crime related.
That last analogy should have been written like this to really match the proposed scenario: Would you sue Ford because Chevrolet made an ugly can that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Chrysler?
Would you consider suing McDonalds if the stupid lady dropped the coffee on you? Would you sue Ford because the stupid lady blew through the stop sign and ran into you? Would you sue Ford because Chevy made an ugly car that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Ford? On what grounds would you sue a gun manufacturer because a stupid person mistook your phone for one of their products that you never bought?
Nope, economics is on the side of the police being far more likely to hit bystanders. Why? Because the police are not held liable for injuring others and the private citizen is.
Only idiots believe that making the absurd argument about "shall not be infringed" having a plain meaning and then saying something about giving convicted criminals in prison guns somehow makes them looks as if they had "mad argument skillz." The fact that you have already agreed that being a convicted criminal means that society is able to infringe upon your unfringeable rights (putting someone in prison is infringing on their right to not be imprisoned) but are unable to also make the leap that it might then be okay to restrict other rights as well just makes you look as if you are too stupid to generate coherent thoughts.
Well, most anti-gun people aren't even sure how a gun really works or where the bullets go in and come out so it is easy to see how they could make such simple mistakes in thinking.
I don't believe that actually happened. Argentina has pretty restrictive gun laws according to gunpolicy.org (a group that advocates for strict gun laws so they would tend to underclassify not overclassify) and we all know that restrictive gun laws leave no room for the improper or criminal use of firearms.
4 almost never happens and 5 happens even less. In fact, they happen so infrequently that they get lumped into 1 and are an almost invisible part of it.
It is rather hilarious how people never seem to worry about suing Ford because Joe Sixpack got liquored up and killed Sally but they sure do get worked up about how they can't sue Smith and Wesson because Antwon Methpeddler tried to shoot Jose McCracky but missed and shot McCracky's little sister instead.
So, what you are saying is that a group that seems to be pushing for the dark net to be suppressed because the dark net lacks transparency is apparently afraid of transparency? Who would ever believe something like that? Believing that something like that being possible would be just as dumb as believing that the wealthiest 10 individuals in the US really are asking for their taxes to be raised significantly.
According to those who still ask for it (seemingly the majority of the western world), it has gone extremely well. So well, in fact, that we should do more of it.
Given the fact that Europe has been having issues with people using guns that are extremely difficult to legally own even in the "decadent" (by gun control standards) US, I'm not sure reality is on their side.
Or they can look at a meth addicts teeth and realize the affects that metabolizing meth has on the body and decide that meth use is probably something to stay away from if you want to continue to have teeth and good health.
Or they thought their dad's uncle looked pretty scary after losing most of his lower jaw to cancer from heavy use of tobacco and alcohol and decided that they didn't want to be the one to go around scaring little kids.
Or they saw sisters and aunts waste their lives and mental acuity by abusing multiple prescription drugs and decided that they would be better off maintaining the ability to think straight.
Or maybe they see exactly how idiotic people get when they drink to much and decide to not take those risks.
Maybe that is only anecdotal evidence and is invalid as far as fightermagethief is concerned. Personally, I don't care what he thinks because I believe in learning from the mistakes of others just as much as i do from my own.
Who says that? I've heard people say that he shouldn't be eligible to be President if he was born on foreign soil and his parents didn't treat him as a US citizen. The fact that he was on a university scholarship available only to non-US citizens might be evidence of this. I've never heard anybody say he is a dumbass for having been born there.
Pro-Muslim... Why does anyone have to be pro-Muslim or pro-Christian or pro-Atheist? I'm not even sure what anti-colonial means. Are you saying that Obama somehow believes that the US didn't start out as colonies of Great Britain? Or that he is against colonizing the moon or Mars?
Well, very many people in the US believe that being anti-American makes you a dumbass, just like many in Germany feel that being anti-German makes you a dumbass. Likewise, many believe that being a socialist makes you a dumbass just like socialist believe that not being a socialist makes you a dumbass. Do you really expect people to not feel that way?
Oh I can't wait for the left to realize how it got suckered when an administration (after Citizen's United gets overturned) uses the US Marshall Service to physically stop the presses or to gather up all the printed copies of a book already printed because said administration does not like how unflattering it paints the administration. That is one of the "remedies" the Obama administration admitted to wanting in this case. It is all there, in black and white, open for anybody willing to actually pull their heads out of their nether regions long enough to actually read the written opinions of the court. And don't forget to notice the part about how the dissenting judges think there is a very easy way to tell who is a legitimate member of the press and deserving of the right to free (unrestricted) speech and who is not.
Or don't and continue begging a benevolent government to further erode your right to express your opinion and band together.
And notice how the Bill Maher example of correct vs incorrect uses definitions of correct and incorrect that have nothing to do with matches facts and does not match facts? That is why political correctness is so wrong and should not even be considered a thing in a free society. Correctness should be defined by "fact matching" and not by a groups comfort level.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the cops conceal themselves at all. The majority don't. We don't know they are police because they strap gun on their waist. We know they are a cop because they wear a uniform. The ones that don't wear uniforms also conceal their weapons. Why is that?
Given that we have had no mass shootings in the US in the past few decades where guns are not clearly banned, it is actually safe to assume that a certain class of criminal is actually thinking about where to commit crimes. The one or two we've had in places that didn't ban guns were stopped before they became mass shootings because someone was carrying a concealed gun.
No, the reality of the situation was that criminals realized that many more non-criminals would now be carrying guns and so the odds of targetting an unarmed victim decreased dramatically.
Your stupid comment about the police concealing their weapons would only make sense if 1) the vast majority of police were also plainclothes and 2) there were as many police as there are non-police. Since neither of those apply, then your little ranting is pointless or as you put it "a gross insult to intelligence."
But please keep trying because you just may get lucky enough one day to have a rational thought. They say that if you give enough monkeys enough time and enough typewriters that those monkeys will be able to reproduce the works of Shakespeare so you too have hope.
You mean 1/500th what the CEO makes. 500 times less than the CEO would mean that the burger flipper is paying the CEO 500 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers or something like that. It is difficult to get the equation exactly right because it is a bogus concept. Maybe the burger flipper only pays 499 CEO-salaries. Let's see... The CEO makes 1 CEO-salary and 500 times that is 500 CEO-salaries and so the burger flipper makes 500 CEO-salaries less than the CEO so we have 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = 1 CEO-salary - 500 CEO-salary => 1 BurgerFlipper-salary = -499 CEO-salary. So, I guess Mr. Burger Flipper is actually paying McDonalds 499 CEO-salaries for the privilege of flipping burgers at McDonalds. No wonder McDonalds remains profitable. Remind me that when i retire and supplement my income at Mickey-Ds to work the counter instead of flipping burgers; i hear that McDonalds actually pays the counter workers.
In reality, I know the owner of what we could call a burger joint franchise and he made less money over the past two years than some of his employees. Granted, he is paying himself a very low wage for the first two years of being an owner in order to pay down the $1.5 million dollars of loan he needed to open the business but who cares about that. It just sounds better to say that everybody running a business is an asshole and that it takes nothing to run a business.
According to wikipedia: "Ballistic nylon was originally developed by the DuPont corporation as a material for flak jackets to be worn by World War II airmen. The term ballistic nylon takes its name from the fact that it was intended to protect its wearers from flying debris and fragmentation caused by bullet or artillery shell impacts."
Well, you know, the fear of being swatted by some liberal cry-baby is not exactly an indicator of being mentally unbalanced as a prominent gun control advocacy group in the US, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, has asked people to do exactly that and it apparently caused the death of a man in Colorado who was attempting to buy a pellet gun in a store that sells pellet guns.
So, yes, being afraid of being killed for simply minding your own business does not make one mentally unbalanced, it makes one prudent.
So, you are opposed to allowing a person who does not drink to carry into a restaurant where others may be drinking. Are you against concealed carry in general? If not, why would a non-drinker (if even for the evening) carrying in a bar/restaurant (almost one and the same here in Wisconsin) be any different than the same person carrying in a public campground or public park where other people are drinking beers with their brats and burgers?
So, you just provided the perfect argument proving that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Still feeling like you won this one?
That is exactly the proper reaction to have. As the retired police officer who taught my concealed carry permit course said to the class when asked how strictly are the "Please don't carry in here" signs enforced: "Concealed carry means concealed and if you are doing it properly who will anybody else know you are carrying?" Yes, he was retired but his job was training college students to become police officers. Many, probably the majority, of police officers are actually proponents of non-LEOs carrying.
14,000? Where the hell did that number come from? Total gun deaths in the US are around 30,000 a year for the past decade or so with 20,000 of them being suicides and 8,000-9,000 being gang or other crime related.
That last analogy should have been written like this to really match the proposed scenario: Would you sue Ford because Chevrolet made an ugly can that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Chrysler?
Would you consider suing McDonalds if the stupid lady dropped the coffee on you? Would you sue Ford because the stupid lady blew through the stop sign and ran into you? Would you sue Ford because Chevy made an ugly car that pissed the stupid lady off so she ran into your Ford? On what grounds would you sue a gun manufacturer because a stupid person mistook your phone for one of their products that you never bought?
Nope, economics is on the side of the police being far more likely to hit bystanders. Why? Because the police are not held liable for injuring others and the private citizen is.
Only idiots believe that making the absurd argument about "shall not be infringed" having a plain meaning and then saying something about giving convicted criminals in prison guns somehow makes them looks as if they had "mad argument skillz." The fact that you have already agreed that being a convicted criminal means that society is able to infringe upon your unfringeable rights (putting someone in prison is infringing on their right to not be imprisoned) but are unable to also make the leap that it might then be okay to restrict other rights as well just makes you look as if you are too stupid to generate coherent thoughts.
Well, most anti-gun people aren't even sure how a gun really works or where the bullets go in and come out so it is easy to see how they could make such simple mistakes in thinking.
I don't believe that actually happened. Argentina has pretty restrictive gun laws according to gunpolicy.org (a group that advocates for strict gun laws so they would tend to underclassify not overclassify) and we all know that restrictive gun laws leave no room for the improper or criminal use of firearms.
4 almost never happens and 5 happens even less. In fact, they happen so infrequently that they get lumped into 1 and are an almost invisible part of it.
It is rather hilarious how people never seem to worry about suing Ford because Joe Sixpack got liquored up and killed Sally but they sure do get worked up about how they can't sue Smith and Wesson because Antwon Methpeddler tried to shoot Jose McCracky but missed and shot McCracky's little sister instead.
Uh, no. Nearly every mass shooting in the US has taken place in a location (building or campus) where it is illegal to be in possession of a gun.
Yes, common sense tells us that zero guns means zero shootings but there are very few cities and towns in the world with zero guns.
So, what you are saying is that a group that seems to be pushing for the dark net to be suppressed because the dark net lacks transparency is apparently afraid of transparency? Who would ever believe something like that? Believing that something like that being possible would be just as dumb as believing that the wealthiest 10 individuals in the US really are asking for their taxes to be raised significantly.
According to those who still ask for it (seemingly the majority of the western world), it has gone extremely well. So well, in fact, that we should do more of it.
Given the fact that Europe has been having issues with people using guns that are extremely difficult to legally own even in the "decadent" (by gun control standards) US, I'm not sure reality is on their side.
Or they can look at a meth addicts teeth and realize the affects that metabolizing meth has on the body and decide that meth use is probably something to stay away from if you want to continue to have teeth and good health.
Or they thought their dad's uncle looked pretty scary after losing most of his lower jaw to cancer from heavy use of tobacco and alcohol and decided that they didn't want to be the one to go around scaring little kids.
Or they saw sisters and aunts waste their lives and mental acuity by abusing multiple prescription drugs and decided that they would be better off maintaining the ability to think straight.
Or maybe they see exactly how idiotic people get when they drink to much and decide to not take those risks.
Maybe that is only anecdotal evidence and is invalid as far as fightermagethief is concerned. Personally, I don't care what he thinks because I believe in learning from the mistakes of others just as much as i do from my own.
Who says that? I've heard people say that he shouldn't be eligible to be President if he was born on foreign soil and his parents didn't treat him as a US citizen. The fact that he was on a university scholarship available only to non-US citizens might be evidence of this. I've never heard anybody say he is a dumbass for having been born there.
Pro-Muslim... Why does anyone have to be pro-Muslim or pro-Christian or pro-Atheist? I'm not even sure what anti-colonial means. Are you saying that Obama somehow believes that the US didn't start out as colonies of Great Britain? Or that he is against colonizing the moon or Mars?
Well, very many people in the US believe that being anti-American makes you a dumbass, just like many in Germany feel that being anti-German makes you a dumbass. Likewise, many believe that being a socialist makes you a dumbass just like socialist believe that not being a socialist makes you a dumbass. Do you really expect people to not feel that way?
Oh I can't wait for the left to realize how it got suckered when an administration (after Citizen's United gets overturned) uses the US Marshall Service to physically stop the presses or to gather up all the printed copies of a book already printed because said administration does not like how unflattering it paints the administration. That is one of the "remedies" the Obama administration admitted to wanting in this case. It is all there, in black and white, open for anybody willing to actually pull their heads out of their nether regions long enough to actually read the written opinions of the court. And don't forget to notice the part about how the dissenting judges think there is a very easy way to tell who is a legitimate member of the press and deserving of the right to free (unrestricted) speech and who is not.
Or don't and continue begging a benevolent government to further erode your right to express your opinion and band together.
And notice how the Bill Maher example of correct vs incorrect uses definitions of correct and incorrect that have nothing to do with matches facts and does not match facts? That is why political correctness is so wrong and should not even be considered a thing in a free society. Correctness should be defined by "fact matching" and not by a groups comfort level.