WTF?!? Purell is probably the most common hand cleanser in the US and it is 62% ethanol (ethyl alcohol) according to the manufacturer's website. Or are you claiming that the evil American empire has forced other countries to act according to the stupidity you have written.
If the Feds weren't skimming such a huge chunk off the top, then the states could take more directly. I would be much happier if the rates were reversed and the Feds sent nothing back.
Why not, about half of Slashdot has no problems with the Brady Campaign. and its allies running us down a parallel road based on an order of magnitude fewer deaths.
Bad example in any legal jurisdiction in which I've lived with one possible exception which only lasted 22 months. Except for those months spent in Switzerland, I've never lived where the law didn't allow me to use a gun (or other lethal weapon) to defend myself and others if I or they were under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
Funny how you seem to take for granted (and seem to agree with) a situation that many other Slashdotters complain is NOT the norm in the US while clamoring loudly for it to become the norm.
Hardly. He is pushing way too much crap to be considered a conservative. I think you are seeing his similarity to John McCain but forgetting that McCain is a progressive (by his own words).
Completely wrong. Obviously you've never talked to a professional instructor about using weapons defensively. Any time a firearm is fired at another person in the US, the law says that deadly force has been used. It does not matter whether the intent was to kill or not. Now, just how stupid is it to use deadly force for any purpose other than to kill. I would not want to sit in front of a jury and explain how I could possibly justify the use of deadly force without feeling threatened enough to need to permanently stop my assailant. Maybe the assailant is killed, maybe not. Many people survive gunshot wounds. But the only justification for using deadly force is if you feel that you or someone around you are/is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm*. If you really do feel that way, why would you not do everything in your power to permanently stop that threat. Purposely maiming someone with the intent to let them live seems the same as torture to me.
As for wars... The strategic goal may be to end the dispute by neutralizing your opponent and get your way but strategy not backed by some tactics is only a thought exercise. Those tactics could be embargoes and such but once you get into a shooting war, then the only successful tactic is killing. The reason for that is that a wounded soldier can still fight. A dead one cannot. Only barbaric people form as their goal maiming enough enemy soldiers that they might as well be dead and overload the enemy that way. Yes. I am very conservative and the US political leadership that implemented that failed tactic in Vietnam were barbaric.
*Many states recognize that ordinary citizens are justified feeling that death or great bodily harm are imminent as soon as someone has unlawfully entered their home or car, etc. (generally referred to as "The Castle Doctrine") This is because nearly every burglar or thief brazen enough to enter a home or car when occupied does have that intent.
Who are you to tell me that my gun has to be locked in a safe with the ammo somewhere else to be properly stored. Proper storage of a firearm only involves keeping it from rusting and being misused. I have no one in my home who would misuse my guns so I don't see the need to lock them up.
"Rambo self defense strategy"... Take ten minutes to do some actual research and you will find plenty of incidents where keeping a loaded gun handy has prevented rape, maiming and death.
"some other purpose built tool for the job instead of a handgun I use for shooting targets" In most of the US, you are able to have exactly that. Keep a short-barrelled shotgun (as short as is legal) or a handgun or an AR-15 or some other rifle. Shotguns and handguns are generally considered better "close-quarters" weapons for defensive situations. Shotguns because they require less accurate aiming. Handguns because they are easier to aim over short distances. Rifles like AR-15s are easy to configure with sights that allow very quick short range "target acquisition" so they work fairly well also. That being said, you should probably use whatever you keep handy for defense for shooting targets as well. Practice makes perfect applies to pretty much every aspect of life, especially those aspects that involve muscle control and hand-eye coordination.
As for all this being worth the risk for you, you probably are closer to Michael Bloomberg than Thomas Jefferson in the safety versus liberty argument and that crowd is generally willing to accept almost any risk to be free of the imaginary risk my guns are causing them.
That is not surprising since out of the 2 million or more defensive uses a year, maybe a thousand involve actually firing the weapon. Most of the time just letting it be seen sends the perp fleeing.
The question remains. If no one actually willing to purchase a firearm actually wants this technology, what is their intended market?
It will only be used by the big city police force in cities run by Democrats and possibly all those countries that have irrational fears of certain inanimate objects.
No actual gun owner or gun owner wannabe is asking for this.
Regardless of how innovative, nobody wants it. Politicians have convinced some of the less rational folks that such technology is desirable and must be required but the only people they've convinced are the ones that are so irrational that they believe all that fiction that Tolkien wrote about chunks of metal assuming magical powers when formed into certain shapes under certain circumstances.
The problem of a gun being taken from a victim by an assailant and then used by the assailant on the victim accounts for maybe a percent of a percent of firearms misuses. They are trying to solve a non-existent problem and will have no customers except possibly some large city police forces because the decision makers make political decisions to further a political agenda rather than rational decisions to promote safety.
The only people asking for this are the gun banning crowd. In other words, this manufacturer will soon find that it is producing a weapon to the exact specifications of the consumer who has already stated that they do not want to own guns.
All this biometric safety crap is simply a ploy to make guns too expensive for the common man.
My guess is that he is using a pocket holster that covers the trigger but not much else. That is a perfectly valid way of doing it. Practiced by many an undercover officer.
Just remember all those who claim that right-wing gun owners are the ones trying to shred the constitution and take away all civil liberties and that only by electing left-wing, pro-union pols are we going to be safe.
Big city police commissioners (in the States) are always left-wing political appointees. Every one of them wants to shred the 2nd Amendment and the left always backs them up. And then they keep their silence when they start going after all the others as well.
Do you realize that Bob Beckel is a very big supporter of Obama. He goes against nearly every other person on Fox News so maybe he had a point other than "ban muslims because they are muslim." His point seemed to be that we need to stop letting them come over until we have a better way of knowing what they are doing when they travel back and forth like those two did. (one of them anyway).
I seem to remember be very disgusted at the site of a bunch of Brits partying it up when a former Prime Minister of theirs died a few weeks ago. Having a good ol' time they were. Almost like the munhckins in the Wizard of Oz they were.
As for no cheering after Holmes was caught in Denver. He was caught immediately and didn't shut the city down so there wasn't quite the same sense of relief. Some of my circle of acquaintances were disappointed that he wasn't just killed but he surrendered to quickly. Another difference is that the police were actually on scene enforcing crowd control and seemingly also enforcing the weapons ban at the theater. They sort of failed that one. Oh yeah, the other thing. He wasn't a foreigner committing an act or war against the country. (yes. the Tarnaevs were naturalized citizens but it didn't take and they reverted back.)
Same for Lanza except the police already being there.
As for the giving blood being a different America... are you certain that it was two different groups with no overlap? You are probably very mistaken in that belief.
Yup. Difficult to obtain legally. Probably no more difficult to obtain illegally than the gun itself. Keep living the fantasy that your criminals are more "civilized" and law-abiding than ours.
Maybe those places could grow up and realize that guns being available to responsible adults don't actually cause problems. They can grow up and realize that the notion of chunks of metal, no matter how curiously they are worked, do not have magical powers to control their possessor.
Here is a clue for you. If your criminals want guns, they'll get guns. Nothing you or your masters do will stop them. Even the USSR had murders committed with guns and there hasn't been a much more controlled society.
That's a perfect liberal. Doesn't like guns because they hurt people but willing to laugh when the wrong person gets hurt by one. Not only willing to laugh but begging for the opportunity to do so. F***ing hypocrite.
Come now, Innocent lives are lost every day to all kinds of things and generally at a much higher rate than to guns. Something like 80% of gun related deaths in the US are criminals killing other criminals. That is people engaged in a criminal activity other than the improper use of a firearm are also using firearms to kill like-minded folks. The next largest chunk is suicide. A very small portion is criminal killing non-criminal or accidental. Even the accidental ones are about half alcohol related. Its been a while since I looked, but every other "Western" country has very similar stats.
A fair percentage of the military is the NRA. Why does every left-wing nutjob always have to assume that every one that joins the military automatically turns into a mindless zombie and will do whatever a misguided politician demands of them?
Slashdot Mirror
WTF?!? Purell is probably the most common hand cleanser in the US and it is 62% ethanol (ethyl alcohol) according to the manufacturer's website. Or are you claiming that the evil American empire has forced other countries to act according to the stupidity you have written.
What a load of crap you have spewed.
If the Feds weren't skimming such a huge chunk off the top, then the states could take more directly. I would be much happier if the rates were reversed and the Feds sent nothing back.
Why not, about half of Slashdot has no problems with the Brady Campaign. and its allies running us down a parallel road based on an order of magnitude fewer deaths.
Bad example in any legal jurisdiction in which I've lived with one possible exception which only lasted 22 months. Except for those months spent in Switzerland, I've never lived where the law didn't allow me to use a gun (or other lethal weapon) to defend myself and others if I or they were under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
Funny how you seem to take for granted (and seem to agree with) a situation that many other Slashdotters complain is NOT the norm in the US while clamoring loudly for it to become the norm.
The Indian casinos are generally run by the Vegas casinos as are the New Jersey casinos.
Hardly. He is pushing way too much crap to be considered a conservative. I think you are seeing his similarity to John McCain but forgetting that McCain is a progressive (by his own words).
Probably but it isn't conflicting with any of his interests so why should he care?
My guns have never harmed anyone and are not causing risk to anyone. Maybe your guns are. Maybe somebody else's guns are. But leave mine alone.
Completely wrong. Obviously you've never talked to a professional instructor about using weapons defensively. Any time a firearm is fired at another person in the US, the law says that deadly force has been used. It does not matter whether the intent was to kill or not. Now, just how stupid is it to use deadly force for any purpose other than to kill. I would not want to sit in front of a jury and explain how I could possibly justify the use of deadly force without feeling threatened enough to need to permanently stop my assailant. Maybe the assailant is killed, maybe not. Many people survive gunshot wounds. But the only justification for using deadly force is if you feel that you or someone around you are/is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm*. If you really do feel that way, why would you not do everything in your power to permanently stop that threat. Purposely maiming someone with the intent to let them live seems the same as torture to me.
As for wars... The strategic goal may be to end the dispute by neutralizing your opponent and get your way but strategy not backed by some tactics is only a thought exercise. Those tactics could be embargoes and such but once you get into a shooting war, then the only successful tactic is killing. The reason for that is that a wounded soldier can still fight. A dead one cannot. Only barbaric people form as their goal maiming enough enemy soldiers that they might as well be dead and overload the enemy that way. Yes. I am very conservative and the US political leadership that implemented that failed tactic in Vietnam were barbaric.
*Many states recognize that ordinary citizens are justified feeling that death or great bodily harm are imminent as soon as someone has unlawfully entered their home or car, etc. (generally referred to as "The Castle Doctrine") This is because nearly every burglar or thief brazen enough to enter a home or car when occupied does have that intent.
Who are you to tell me that my gun has to be locked in a safe with the ammo somewhere else to be properly stored. Proper storage of a firearm only involves keeping it from rusting and being misused. I have no one in my home who would misuse my guns so I don't see the need to lock them up.
"Rambo self defense strategy"... Take ten minutes to do some actual research and you will find plenty of incidents where keeping a loaded gun handy has prevented rape, maiming and death.
"some other purpose built tool for the job instead of a handgun I use for shooting targets" In most of the US, you are able to have exactly that. Keep a short-barrelled shotgun (as short as is legal) or a handgun or an AR-15 or some other rifle. Shotguns and handguns are generally considered better "close-quarters" weapons for defensive situations. Shotguns because they require less accurate aiming. Handguns because they are easier to aim over short distances. Rifles like AR-15s are easy to configure with sights that allow very quick short range "target acquisition" so they work fairly well also. That being said, you should probably use whatever you keep handy for defense for shooting targets as well. Practice makes perfect applies to pretty much every aspect of life, especially those aspects that involve muscle control and hand-eye coordination.
As for all this being worth the risk for you, you probably are closer to Michael Bloomberg than Thomas Jefferson in the safety versus liberty argument and that crowd is generally willing to accept almost any risk to be free of the imaginary risk my guns are causing them.
That is not surprising since out of the 2 million or more defensive uses a year, maybe a thousand involve actually firing the weapon. Most of the time just letting it be seen sends the perp fleeing.
The question remains. If no one actually willing to purchase a firearm actually wants this technology, what is their intended market?
It will only be used by the big city police force in cities run by Democrats and possibly all those countries that have irrational fears of certain inanimate objects.
No actual gun owner or gun owner wannabe is asking for this.
Regardless of how innovative, nobody wants it. Politicians have convinced some of the less rational folks that such technology is desirable and must be required but the only people they've convinced are the ones that are so irrational that they believe all that fiction that Tolkien wrote about chunks of metal assuming magical powers when formed into certain shapes under certain circumstances.
The problem of a gun being taken from a victim by an assailant and then used by the assailant on the victim accounts for maybe a percent of a percent of firearms misuses. They are trying to solve a non-existent problem and will have no customers except possibly some large city police forces because the decision makers make political decisions to further a political agenda rather than rational decisions to promote safety.
" if you don't want this, don't buy it."
The only people asking for this are the gun banning crowd. In other words, this manufacturer will soon find that it is producing a weapon to the exact specifications of the consumer who has already stated that they do not want to own guns.
All this biometric safety crap is simply a ploy to make guns too expensive for the common man.
My guess is that he is using a pocket holster that covers the trigger but not much else. That is a perfectly valid way of doing it. Practiced by many an undercover officer.
Isn't Apache Open Source?
Isn't Open Source the only way to prevent this stuff from getting into the wild?
Are we totally screwed because our last best hope hopeless?
Just remember all those who claim that right-wing gun owners are the ones trying to shred the constitution and take away all civil liberties and that only by electing left-wing, pro-union pols are we going to be safe.
Big city police commissioners (in the States) are always left-wing political appointees. Every one of them wants to shred the 2nd Amendment and the left always backs them up. And then they keep their silence when they start going after all the others as well.
That would make you the best hitter ever in MLB, so probably?
Care to back that up with an actual study measuring the IQ of firearms owners?
Do you realize that Bob Beckel is a very big supporter of Obama. He goes against nearly every other person on Fox News so maybe he had a point other than "ban muslims because they are muslim." His point seemed to be that we need to stop letting them come over until we have a better way of knowing what they are doing when they travel back and forth like those two did. (one of them anyway).
I seem to remember be very disgusted at the site of a bunch of Brits partying it up when a former Prime Minister of theirs died a few weeks ago. Having a good ol' time they were. Almost like the munhckins in the Wizard of Oz they were.
As for no cheering after Holmes was caught in Denver. He was caught immediately and didn't shut the city down so there wasn't quite the same sense of relief. Some of my circle of acquaintances were disappointed that he wasn't just killed but he surrendered to quickly. Another difference is that the police were actually on scene enforcing crowd control and seemingly also enforcing the weapons ban at the theater. They sort of failed that one. Oh yeah, the other thing. He wasn't a foreigner committing an act or war against the country. (yes. the Tarnaevs were naturalized citizens but it didn't take and they reverted back.)
Same for Lanza except the police already being there.
As for the giving blood being a different America... are you certain that it was two different groups with no overlap? You are probably very mistaken in that belief.
Yup. Difficult to obtain legally. Probably no more difficult to obtain illegally than the gun itself. Keep living the fantasy that your criminals are more "civilized" and law-abiding than ours.
Maybe those places could grow up and realize that guns being available to responsible adults don't actually cause problems. They can grow up and realize that the notion of chunks of metal, no matter how curiously they are worked, do not have magical powers to control their possessor.
Here is a clue for you. If your criminals want guns, they'll get guns. Nothing you or your masters do will stop them. Even the USSR had murders committed with guns and there hasn't been a much more controlled society.
That's a perfect liberal. Doesn't like guns because they hurt people but willing to laugh when the wrong person gets hurt by one. Not only willing to laugh but begging for the opportunity to do so. F***ing hypocrite.
Come now, Innocent lives are lost every day to all kinds of things and generally at a much higher rate than to guns. Something like 80% of gun related deaths in the US are criminals killing other criminals. That is people engaged in a criminal activity other than the improper use of a firearm are also using firearms to kill like-minded folks. The next largest chunk is suicide. A very small portion is criminal killing non-criminal or accidental. Even the accidental ones are about half alcohol related. Its been a while since I looked, but every other "Western" country has very similar stats.
A fair percentage of the military is the NRA. Why does every left-wing nutjob always have to assume that every one that joins the military automatically turns into a mindless zombie and will do whatever a misguided politician demands of them?