Being afraid of a loose tiger is rational. There are very active organizations with political power attempting to ban/further restrict firearms. A certain amount of 'tizzy' is justified.
I really wouldn't describe my thoughts on it as 'fear' though. Concern, certainly, but the results of that is tossing the NRA $20 every so often and writing my representatives.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.
Right back at you - "You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk."
Rate the friend/associate. If they're not trustworthy enough to carry a firearm around me, I think they're not trustworthy enough to hang around with anyways.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot.
However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Only if they're not an authorized user. Crazy, I know, but many gun-owning adults trust their kids enough to let them shoot. Even in the case of this RFID system, there's a good chance that the watch will be stored right next to the gun. Safety systems only work if you use them... With me and my parents? You need the key and combination to the safe. I'd rate that as at least as effective as most biometric systems I can picture.
Alternatively, the teen could decide to commite suicide by another way. The most horrible I can think of that can actually happen would be the 'deliberately veer into incoming traffic on the highway' one. That asshole actually ended up surviving - he was in a premium SUV. The family in the car he struck, not so much.
which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
Gun manufacturers are a minor component of NRA funding, and the NRA is more moderate than you think.
Who else would be involved? This is the FAA's jurisdiction.
Why not the NYPD? They could charge the operator with some form of 'reckless endagerment' for crashing the drone around people, and the owners of the buildings can sue him for any damages to their structures.
I fail to see why the FAA needs to get involved unless the operator was threatening manned flight.
They make you look the knee-jerky type you (judging by the rest of your comment) seem to not want to be.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly. It's just that in my experience those NOT in the habit of carrying deadly weapons tend to be a lot looser with their lips. Like bleh said - it's nothing but empty threats, but it might be considered not so empty if I did it.
I believe that part of the reason for the phrasing is that the AC's comment struck me as politically charged.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
They're being deprived of the liberty to own firearms via the due process of law - IE a court trial. I'm really not happy with anything less, and even then in the case of the mentally ill they should have their case periodically reviewed, and in the case of criminals they should be able to have their rights restored after getting off of parole at the latest. If they can't be trusted after their parole ends, they shouldn't be out anyways.
Even then, as you say - you still have rights no matter how badly you've acted. A felon still has the right to a fair trial for his second offense, etc... Heck, he still has the right to defend himself against attack.
originate from legal purchases at gun shows which are specifically exempt from the tracking and controls that would be done elsewhere
Citation please. The 'specific exemption' you talk about is that sales at gun shows are regulated exactly the same as they are NOT at gun shows. IE a dealer with an FFL is required to do a background check, log the sale into his bound book, etc... A non-dealer selling a firearm is NOT required to log it and can't legally do a background check using the NICS system.
Likewise there are gun stores in Pennslyvania which are ONLY legally allowed to sell to people coming in from out of state.
Again, citation is required. The laws regarding an interstate sale - and the feds care about state of residence for considering it 'interstate' are complicated and restrictive enough that I don't imagine that a legal gun store would be able to survive on the exemptions. For the first restriction, I know that they wouldn't be able to legally sell handguns at all.
We need a Federally imposed standard of gun regulation which can't be circumvented by gun shows and Pennsy gun shops.
Sure, just as soon as you show that 'gun shows' and gun shops are actually circumventing anything.
It also meant 'came equipped with functional weapons, equipment, and with certain minimal supplies'.
A modern equivalent would be that if called you'd be required to show up for militia duty with a sighted-in semi-automatic.223 rifle with 2 loaded 30 round magazines. It might be required that the rifle be compatible with AR-15 type magazines(there are dozens of types of rifle that are compatible with them). He would also be required to have a belt and pouch suited for carrying of same.
I based this off of the 1792 Militia Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.
I'm a self-confessed gun nut and I refuse to wear the gag gift t-shirt my parents bought be that says "The first rule of gun safety: Don't piss me off" because it implies I might shoot somebody for merely upsetting me.
I'm not going to shoot somebody unless they present an imminent deadly threat.
I believe that I and my friends threaten people with death a whole lot less than most of the 'liberal' types do.
I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.
If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.
As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.
On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?
Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.
it might save some lives.
I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.
Consider Police Officers. In the last 10 years, 535 were murdered. 25 with their own gun. Per Wiki there's 780k Officers. Firearms are almost the definition of 'durable goods'. So we're looking at ~800k firearms*. At $100 a pop for the smart technology, that's $80M if you don't accellerate replacement of firearms at all. More like $800M* if you really want them in officer's hands NOW.
$80M/25 = $3.2M per officer saved, assuming that the technology prevents every officer death with his stolen weapon, that the officer isn't killed in a different way, and that no officers are killed because their weapon failed to fire when it was supposed to in the Officer's hands.
Given that my valuation for a random life is hovering around $2-3M, it might be worth it only if it's really only $100. But what do you know, it's available for sale in California...
Price Notes: Typical mid-range.22 $300-600 Armatix iP1.22: $1400 Watch: $400(And one is NOT included with the gun).
So if you figure that the RFID option is $1k, that boosts the cost per life saved to $32M. It seems to be more of a 'let's not have POOR people armed' option at this price point. Which would infringe on the RKBA.
The above also assumes that the system doesn't have to be redesigned/reinforced when you go from the very lightweight.22lr round to the relatively punishing.40S&W that US Police seem to prefer. Even 9mm/.45ACP presents far more stress per shot than.22lr.
*Probably more. $100 price increase for the technology, $1000 to buy a gun with it. The version of the firearm without the option would be $900.
An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
I remember reading some stories about clocks and watches were only allowed to be marked 'regulated' if they met requirements in accuracy of telling the time, rather strict ones for the time.
Back in the 18th century it was common to have to reset your clock/watch every day. A regulated one you'd only have to adjust by a minute or so.
Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.
The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.
Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).
There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.
"A well regulated milita being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Personally, using a plain english reading of this, I say that "shall not be infringed" places a bar on how hard the government can make it.
That being said, I'm mostly fine with felons & the mentally ill being barred from possessing firearms. Personally, the furthest I'd go would be some sort of 'gun transfer permit' that is essentially free, that you need to show in order to receive a firearm. No records necessary, it's for lending and selling, etc... You go to the range and want to rent a firearm? Show the permit. Going hunting with a buddy's firearm? Show the permit. Buying? Show the permit. Done. They can't use it to prove that you have firearms for confiscation purposes, and it makes for an easy method for private sellers to determine that you're an allowed person.
Right now there's a substantial group of individuals who won't sell any firearms out of their collection* to anybody without a CCW.
*IE They're NOT a dealer. They're probably selling weapon X in order to be able to afford weapon Y, and a private 'split the difference' sale gets them far more money than involving a dealer.
I don't agree with everything you said, so here's my comments.
Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.
True. These types tend to fixate upon 'gun crime', and worse tend to give us the perception that they're willfully ignorant. They want to ban 'assault weapons', IE scary looking semi-automatic rifles when 72% of firearm murders are by handguns. Shotguns are normally used in more murders than *ALL* rifles. They want to ban.50BMG, used in approximately ZERO murders or crimes(Each round costing ~$20 and fired from a rifle that can't be shot unsupported and is normally 5+ feet long might have something to do with that...). They want to ban high capacity magazines when the average number of shots fired in a confrontation with a semi-automatic is 3.5(2.5 out of revolvers). Etc...
The general consensus is that gun-grabbers are doing the same things that conservative anti-abortion types are trying: Make guns so expensive and such a hassle that most don't bother. We don't like that.
If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)
I'll note that their gun bans have been shot down by the Supreme Court recently.
Personally, I'm all for allowing the sale of Biometric/fire control firearms. I'm just scared of the prospect of states and other jurisdictions *REQUIRING* them before they're well enough developed that the police are willing to use them. Nearly 5% of 'feloniously killed' were killed by their own weapon over the last 10 years. (25 out of 535). Despite this, even in states where they support the most gun control, the police will lobby to the hilt to exempt themselves from any such requirements.
Honestly enough, my figuring: 1. "Smart Guns" will not stop their use for suicide by authorized users. (~19k suicides by firearm; 14k murders by all methods; 69% firearm) 2. SG will not stop criminal action by authorized users 3. Smart Guns will not hold against being reset/modified to remove the function if stolen. 4. I hear more about guns being taken from criminals than citizens trying to use them to defend themselves from criminals.
In short, until they've proven themselves reliable enough for police use where professional armorer support is available for maintenance, I don't think they're ready for private use either.
Not politically motivated, not FUD unless you blow what I stated WAY out of proportion(strawman it), I've posted sources on the concerns that solar power can pose, which doesn't automatically equate to 'problem'.
In response you attack me personally. Your answers tend towards the vague and antagonistic.
Surely you at least know enough about this topic to know where the sun is at the time of least power consumption.
Oops - brainfart. I apologize, DML = DAYTIME Minimum Load, not Daily Minimum load.
Yes, Hawaii is a pretty nice place, not much in the way of heating, yeah, there's a good amount of the year where there's no heating or cooling demands. It might not have much industry, but it has PLENTY of commercial businesses that operate mostly during the day(tourism).
Claiming that the original estimates didn't include inflation is a a minimum disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Didn't claim that. Didn't word it right, but construction costs* have risen above inflation for quite a few years.
As for new developments- I believe it's a mix of many things. Safety standards increased, in some cases above what I'd consider 'sane'. Parts became contaminated that wasn't forseen in the original plan. No long term storage site ever opened up(Yucca Mountain), which increases costs because there's often no where to move the waste, so it has to be kept on site. Construction costs soared past expectations. Etc...
*And deconstruction is a form of construction, utilizing much of the same equipment and labor skills.
Nuclear waste is significantly more dangerous and harder to handle and reprocess than the other pollution in addition to being poisonous.
First, way to get off on a tangent... I didn't actually try to quantify nuclear waste at all.
Still, since you brought it up, keeping in mind that I'm not trying to write a book. 1. Not all nuclear waste is high level waste; things like contaminated lab coats from nuclear medicine are still considered nuclear waste. But I'll assume you're talking about high level waste, specifically spent nuclear fuel. 2. Individually it is indeed very dangerous and 'hard to handle', but there's so very little of it that the overall effort spent on a fuel rod is far less effort than is spent on handing the tons and tons of ash generated by coal power. Remember, quantity has a quality all of it's own. 3. For that matter, it's not that dangerous to store - a 40-60 foot deep pools is all that's necessary, though you want to keep the water circulating, cool, and filled. Not a problem outside of a natural disaster. 4. In solid form the heavy metal poisonous factors is minimized. With coal the heavy metals are often an inhalation hazard. 5. We have easy access to various studies that show that coal power kills tens of thousands a year from their pollution, in the USA alone. Even worst case estimates aren't that high for nuclear power world wide, and that's including Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima.
Basically, nuclear waste is considered a 'big deal' because it's so concentrated that we can realistically keep it contained(and non-harmful) the vast majority of the time, but coal's threat is diffused, not contained, and mostly invisible.
I'll note that recovery of attorney fees is unlikely against true patent troll companies - they'll just use the standard tricks of using a shell company with no assets on the books, just enough money to pay for their lawyers. Though I've heard of that failing on occasion - there are ways to reach deeper into the shells in cases like this, such as charging the lawyers that brought the suit, the executives of the company(SOMEBODY has to be named), etc....
But anything that raises the risk of engaging in patent trolling(and similar lawsuits) is a good thing.
As always, awards should generally be limited to 'reasonable' fees. No spending $1M then charging the other guy for it, when $100k would have been enough...
I suspect that all the people who crunch the numbers for the value of nuclear, don't include the secondary impacts of digging it up, processing, and decommissioning. Nobody has to sit around and guard a used up solar panel for generations later.
It's actually pretty standard to do so, the trick is that ONE freight car of Uranium fuel rods has the power potential, even the wasteful way we use it, of 2 freight trains of coal a day for 10 years.
You think the destruction of a Uranium mine is bad, you've never looked at other metal mines, much less coal mines.
I'm not saying it's pretty, but my research has done more to give me a huge contempt for coal power, than any praise for nuclear.
Still, in the interest of avoiding 'single sourcing', I've proposed a rough 'CO2 free' electrical power mix of 40% nuclear(baseload), 20% solar(covers increased power usage during day), 20% wind(why not?), and 20% other(hydro and all the other small generation sources).
If Nuclear power were such a great bang for the buck -- you'd think there would be a private company that could make a reactor without the government insuring them and backstopping them every step of the way.
It's hard to see any major power generator being put in without 'government backstopping', especially when most of the hurdles are put in place by the government itself, not actual construction difficulties.
Given how much space most nuclear sites have, you could build a new nuclear 'plant' - reactor and associated generation equipment every ~60 years or so, retire the old one, decommission it gradually over the course of the next 30 years or so, then build a new one - with the general effect of the plant 'shuffling' a bit around on the property, potentially for centuries.
Nice thing about nuclear power stuff is that if you can let it sit for a few years it generally becomes a lot less radioactive and easier to work with.
Well, it would vary quite a bit - how much space each plant 'takes up', how much is owned around it varies by OOMS. Palo Verde has 4k acres.
Surry Power Station, on the other hand, only has 840 acres. Commissioned in 1972 it's more likely to be decomissioned sooner than Palo Verde.
Still, per the NEI all nuclear waste nuclear fuel for the last 50 years would fit in a football field to a depth of 7 yards. Given that a football field is 1.3 acres, I'm confident that you could fit a few eons worth of waste fuel into the Surry site. Accepting low and medium level waste would shorten the ability to store it substantially.
OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.
Are the byproducts economically useful? No.* Are they hazardous? Yes. Then it's waste. The radioactivity makes it 'nuclear', for a limited definition of nuclear(IE you have to really stretch; you'll be poisoned chemically long before the radiation hurts you).
Still, I can't help but think that part of the problem is that since the power plants were constructed we completely rewrote the book on what's required in decommissioning it, besides inflation alone.
Really, it's a good thing most nuclear power plants are operating longer - the longer they run the bigger that decommissioning fund grows.
I ran a few classes when I went back to university to do some postgraduate study after some years in industry.
See how annoying it is when you do it to me?
The posts above entitled "Let's try thinking through an example" and "I think I see where you have a problem" cover it very well so I wish you would stop pretending I have not already done so.
Neither of which were actually sourced. But note what I did when you did the example. Did I attack you or did I address your statements? I addressed your statements. Even with evidence in some cases. I agreed with points that I agree with/also believe to be true, and for parts I disagree with, I also gave reasons why I disagree with them.
You been making incredibly stupid statements such as "Hawaii is darn near perfect test case in the USA" and pretending that not only such a stupid thing is true but an even more stupid extrapolation from 10% to 120% in Hawaii is true.
Okay, why ISN'T Hawaii a good test case? I'm not saying that things wouldn't be different elsewhere, but it's uniquely placed to be the leader in demonstrating what a preponderance of solar energy does to a real-world grid.
As for the 'stupid extrapolation' you do realize that those are two different real world numbers, right? 10% of households on Oahu have solar panels installed. 120% of DML(Daily Minimum Load) is the standard limit HECO, the island's electric company, has imposed on small solar installs on the island in order to be connected to the grid. They have done this in the name of grid stability, safety, etc...
So in short, they're not extrapolations at all. At MOST I extrapolated that in a grid where solar power had already reached 100% of DML for 25% of substations and they were anticipating 100% of the island reaching 100% in six months that reaching 120%(of DML) wouldn't take much longer.
"You've been handing down edicts and setting conditions."
Edicts? Conditions, in the sense of 'If X then Y', sure. "If (roughly) 20% of households install solar power systems(that average 100% net) THEN the power companies will need to rework how they do business".
Of course, you have to finish with a personal attack again. You love those, don't you?
Nice. A personal attack on my professionalism. My students in the 1990s never tried that when they were out of their depth - instead they acted like adults and checked their work.
Now you're claiming to be a teacher? I certainly hope you didn't teach your classes like you've attempted to 'teach' me. I assume that you actually TAUGHT your students, assuming you had any. You've failed to teach me anything. I'm not in your class, I'm not taking a test.
If you want to make it like a classroom, I've raised my hand and asked a question, and your response has been to call me stupid, deliberately lying, and indoctrinated while misrepresenting my position. That's neither educating or belief changing.
Identify, specifically where I'm wrong. Explain why it's wrong, provide the correct answer/situation, and citations are preferable, especially when I'm citing sources. Given that it's me, you can expect that once I have a *specific* topic to check that I will do so. 'Nu-huh' is grade school refutation, you have to go beyond that.
Then keep in mind that way back in the beginning I was simply trying to explain why installing energy efficient devices to save X kwh is different than simply putting solar panels up that generate X kwh. I know I didn't do the best job of it, I'd do better today, but that's life. I learn and it's not like I'm doing a professional paper with the attendant days/weeks of editing available.
Heck, I could probably summarize the original topic thusly: "Energy saving appliances tend to drop load overall, especially peaks, while solar panels only drop load during the day/sunlight hours, potentially even returning energy to the grid. The power company's actions to maintain grid stability if large numbers of households do one or the other varies somewhat'.
You've been trying to make a "debate" out of pretending some stupid lies are real instead of just taking a correction at face value.
You've offered a grand total of ONE specific correction(solar reduces the need for additional power plants, which I accepted). Otherwise you make vague comments that amount to 'Nu-huh'.
Slashdot Mirror
Being afraid of a loose tiger is rational. There are very active organizations with political power attempting to ban/further restrict firearms. A certain amount of 'tizzy' is justified.
I really wouldn't describe my thoughts on it as 'fear' though. Concern, certainly, but the results of that is tossing the NRA $20 every so often and writing my representatives.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.
Right back at you - "You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk."
Rate the friend/associate. If they're not trustworthy enough to carry a firearm around me, I think they're not trustworthy enough to hang around with anyways.
I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot.
I suppose you avoid police like the plague?
However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Only if they're not an authorized user. Crazy, I know, but many gun-owning adults trust their kids enough to let them shoot. Even in the case of this RFID system, there's a good chance that the watch will be stored right next to the gun. Safety systems only work if you use them... With me and my parents? You need the key and combination to the safe. I'd rate that as at least as effective as most biometric systems I can picture.
Alternatively, the teen could decide to commite suicide by another way. The most horrible I can think of that can actually happen would be the 'deliberately veer into incoming traffic on the highway' one. That asshole actually ended up surviving - he was in a premium SUV. The family in the car he struck, not so much.
which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
Gun manufacturers are a minor component of NRA funding, and the NRA is more moderate than you think.
Who else would be involved? This is the FAA's jurisdiction.
Why not the NYPD? They could charge the operator with some form of 'reckless endagerment' for crashing the drone around people, and the owners of the buildings can sue him for any damages to their structures.
I fail to see why the FAA needs to get involved unless the operator was threatening manned flight.
They make you look the knee-jerky type you (judging by the rest of your comment) seem to not want to be.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly. It's just that in my experience those NOT in the habit of carrying deadly weapons tend to be a lot looser with their lips. Like bleh said - it's nothing but empty threats, but it might be considered not so empty if I did it.
I believe that part of the reason for the phrasing is that the AC's comment struck me as politically charged.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
They're being deprived of the liberty to own firearms via the due process of law - IE a court trial. I'm really not happy with anything less, and even then in the case of the mentally ill they should have their case periodically reviewed, and in the case of criminals they should be able to have their rights restored after getting off of parole at the latest. If they can't be trusted after their parole ends, they shouldn't be out anyways.
Even then, as you say - you still have rights no matter how badly you've acted. A felon still has the right to a fair trial for his second offense, etc... Heck, he still has the right to defend himself against attack.
originate from legal purchases at gun shows which are specifically exempt from the tracking and controls that would be done elsewhere
Citation please. The 'specific exemption' you talk about is that sales at gun shows are regulated exactly the same as they are NOT at gun shows. IE a dealer with an FFL is required to do a background check, log the sale into his bound book, etc... A non-dealer selling a firearm is NOT required to log it and can't legally do a background check using the NICS system.
Likewise there are gun stores in Pennslyvania which are ONLY legally allowed to sell to people coming in from out of state.
Again, citation is required. The laws regarding an interstate sale - and the feds care about state of residence for considering it 'interstate' are complicated and restrictive enough that I don't imagine that a legal gun store would be able to survive on the exemptions. For the first restriction, I know that they wouldn't be able to legally sell handguns at all.
We need a Federally imposed standard of gun regulation which can't be circumvented by gun shows and Pennsy gun shops.
Sure, just as soon as you show that 'gun shows' and gun shops are actually circumventing anything.
regulated meant trained
It also meant 'came equipped with functional weapons, equipment, and with certain minimal supplies'.
A modern equivalent would be that if called you'd be required to show up for militia duty with a sighted-in semi-automatic .223 rifle with 2 loaded 30 round magazines. It might be required that the rifle be compatible with AR-15 type magazines(there are dozens of types of rifle that are compatible with them). He would also be required to have a belt and pouch suited for carrying of same.
I based this off of the 1792 Militia Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
It was probably this bit:
Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.
I'm a self-confessed gun nut and I refuse to wear the gag gift t-shirt my parents bought be that says "The first rule of gun safety: Don't piss me off" because it implies I might shoot somebody for merely upsetting me.
I'm not going to shoot somebody unless they present an imminent deadly threat.
I believe that I and my friends threaten people with death a whole lot less than most of the 'liberal' types do.
I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.
If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.
As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.
On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?
Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.
it might save some lives.
I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.
Consider Police Officers. In the last 10 years, 535 were murdered. 25 with their own gun. Per Wiki there's 780k Officers. Firearms are almost the definition of 'durable goods'. So we're looking at ~800k firearms*. At $100 a pop for the smart technology, that's $80M if you don't accellerate replacement of firearms at all. More like $800M* if you really want them in officer's hands NOW.
$80M/25 = $3.2M per officer saved, assuming that the technology prevents every officer death with his stolen weapon, that the officer isn't killed in a different way, and that no officers are killed because their weapon failed to fire when it was supposed to in the Officer's hands.
Given that my valuation for a random life is hovering around $2-3M, it might be worth it only if it's really only $100. But what do you know, it's available for sale in California...
Price Notes: Typical mid-range .22 $300-600 .22: $1400
Armatix iP1
Watch: $400(And one is NOT included with the gun).
So if you figure that the RFID option is $1k, that boosts the cost per life saved to $32M. It seems to be more of a 'let's not have POOR people armed' option at this price point. Which would infringe on the RKBA.
The above also assumes that the system doesn't have to be redesigned/reinforced when you go from the very lightweight .22lr round to the relatively punishing .40S&W that US Police seem to prefer. Even 9mm/.45ACP presents far more stress per shot than .22lr.
*Probably more. $100 price increase for the technology, $1000 to buy a gun with it. The version of the firearm without the option would be $900.
An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
I remember reading some stories about clocks and watches were only allowed to be marked 'regulated' if they met requirements in accuracy of telling the time, rather strict ones for the time.
Back in the 18th century it was common to have to reset your clock/watch every day. A regulated one you'd only have to adjust by a minute or so.
First post on this here.
Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.
The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.
Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).
There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.
"A well regulated milita being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Personally, using a plain english reading of this, I say that "shall not be infringed" places a bar on how hard the government can make it.
That being said, I'm mostly fine with felons & the mentally ill being barred from possessing firearms. Personally, the furthest I'd go would be some sort of 'gun transfer permit' that is essentially free, that you need to show in order to receive a firearm. No records necessary, it's for lending and selling, etc... You go to the range and want to rent a firearm? Show the permit. Going hunting with a buddy's firearm? Show the permit. Buying? Show the permit. Done. They can't use it to prove that you have firearms for confiscation purposes, and it makes for an easy method for private sellers to determine that you're an allowed person.
Right now there's a substantial group of individuals who won't sell any firearms out of their collection* to anybody without a CCW.
*IE They're NOT a dealer. They're probably selling weapon X in order to be able to afford weapon Y, and a private 'split the difference' sale gets them far more money than involving a dealer.
I don't agree with everything you said, so here's my comments.
Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.
True. These types tend to fixate upon 'gun crime', and worse tend to give us the perception that they're willfully ignorant. They want to ban 'assault weapons', IE scary looking semi-automatic rifles when 72% of firearm murders are by handguns. Shotguns are normally used in more murders than *ALL* rifles. They want to ban .50BMG, used in approximately ZERO murders or crimes(Each round costing ~$20 and fired from a rifle that can't be shot unsupported and is normally 5+ feet long might have something to do with that...). They want to ban high capacity magazines when the average number of shots fired in a confrontation with a semi-automatic is 3.5(2.5 out of revolvers). Etc...
The general consensus is that gun-grabbers are doing the same things that conservative anti-abortion types are trying: Make guns so expensive and such a hassle that most don't bother. We don't like that.
If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)
I'll note that their gun bans have been shot down by the Supreme Court recently.
Personally, I'm all for allowing the sale of Biometric/fire control firearms. I'm just scared of the prospect of states and other jurisdictions *REQUIRING* them before they're well enough developed that the police are willing to use them. Nearly 5% of 'feloniously killed' were killed by their own weapon over the last 10 years. (25 out of 535). Despite this, even in states where they support the most gun control, the police will lobby to the hilt to exempt themselves from any such requirements.
Honestly enough, my figuring:
1. "Smart Guns" will not stop their use for suicide by authorized users. (~19k suicides by firearm; 14k murders by all methods; 69% firearm)
2. SG will not stop criminal action by authorized users
3. Smart Guns will not hold against being reset/modified to remove the function if stolen.
4. I hear more about guns being taken from criminals than citizens trying to use them to defend themselves from criminals.
In short, until they've proven themselves reliable enough for police use where professional armorer support is available for maintenance, I don't think they're ready for private use either.
Not politically motivated, not FUD unless you blow what I stated WAY out of proportion(strawman it), I've posted sources on the concerns that solar power can pose, which doesn't automatically equate to 'problem'.
In response you attack me personally. Your answers tend towards the vague and antagonistic.
Surely you at least know enough about this topic to know where the sun is at the time of least power consumption.
Oops - brainfart. I apologize, DML = DAYTIME Minimum Load, not Daily Minimum load.
Yes, Hawaii is a pretty nice place, not much in the way of heating, yeah, there's a good amount of the year where there's no heating or cooling demands. It might not have much industry, but it has PLENTY of commercial businesses that operate mostly during the day(tourism).
I await your apology for the personal attacks.
Sort of the same way pensions work right? Unless you're company decides to raid the pension for short term financial issues and goes bankrupt...
Unlike pension funds, decommissioning funds aren't really raidable.
Claiming that the original estimates didn't include inflation is a a minimum disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Didn't claim that. Didn't word it right, but construction costs* have risen above inflation for quite a few years.
As for new developments- I believe it's a mix of many things. Safety standards increased, in some cases above what I'd consider 'sane'. Parts became contaminated that wasn't forseen in the original plan. No long term storage site ever opened up(Yucca Mountain), which increases costs because there's often no where to move the waste, so it has to be kept on site. Construction costs soared past expectations. Etc...
*And deconstruction is a form of construction, utilizing much of the same equipment and labor skills.
Nuclear waste is significantly more dangerous and harder to handle and reprocess than the other pollution in addition to being poisonous.
First, way to get off on a tangent... I didn't actually try to quantify nuclear waste at all.
Still, since you brought it up, keeping in mind that I'm not trying to write a book.
1. Not all nuclear waste is high level waste; things like contaminated lab coats from nuclear medicine are still considered nuclear waste. But I'll assume you're talking about high level waste, specifically spent nuclear fuel.
2. Individually it is indeed very dangerous and 'hard to handle', but there's so very little of it that the overall effort spent on a fuel rod is far less effort than is spent on handing the tons and tons of ash generated by coal power. Remember, quantity has a quality all of it's own.
3. For that matter, it's not that dangerous to store - a 40-60 foot deep pools is all that's necessary, though you want to keep the water circulating, cool, and filled. Not a problem outside of a natural disaster.
4. In solid form the heavy metal poisonous factors is minimized. With coal the heavy metals are often an inhalation hazard.
5. We have easy access to various studies that show that coal power kills tens of thousands a year from their pollution, in the USA alone. Even worst case estimates aren't that high for nuclear power world wide, and that's including Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima.
Basically, nuclear waste is considered a 'big deal' because it's so concentrated that we can realistically keep it contained(and non-harmful) the vast majority of the time, but coal's threat is diffused, not contained, and mostly invisible.
And it's not like coal doesn't have it's waste issues either.
I'll note that recovery of attorney fees is unlikely against true patent troll companies - they'll just use the standard tricks of using a shell company with no assets on the books, just enough money to pay for their lawyers. Though I've heard of that failing on occasion - there are ways to reach deeper into the shells in cases like this, such as charging the lawyers that brought the suit, the executives of the company(SOMEBODY has to be named), etc....
But anything that raises the risk of engaging in patent trolling(and similar lawsuits) is a good thing.
As always, awards should generally be limited to 'reasonable' fees. No spending $1M then charging the other guy for it, when $100k would have been enough...
I suspect that all the people who crunch the numbers for the value of nuclear, don't include the secondary impacts of digging it up, processing, and decommissioning. Nobody has to sit around and guard a used up solar panel for generations later.
It's actually pretty standard to do so, the trick is that ONE freight car of Uranium fuel rods has the power potential, even the wasteful way we use it, of 2 freight trains of coal a day for 10 years.
You think the destruction of a Uranium mine is bad, you've never looked at other metal mines, much less coal mines.
I'm not saying it's pretty, but my research has done more to give me a huge contempt for coal power, than any praise for nuclear.
Still, in the interest of avoiding 'single sourcing', I've proposed a rough 'CO2 free' electrical power mix of 40% nuclear(baseload), 20% solar(covers increased power usage during day), 20% wind(why not?), and 20% other(hydro and all the other small generation sources).
If Nuclear power were such a great bang for the buck -- you'd think there would be a private company that could make a reactor without the government insuring them and backstopping them every step of the way.
It's hard to see any major power generator being put in without 'government backstopping', especially when most of the hurdles are put in place by the government itself, not actual construction difficulties.
Given how much space most nuclear sites have, you could build a new nuclear 'plant' - reactor and associated generation equipment every ~60 years or so, retire the old one, decommission it gradually over the course of the next 30 years or so, then build a new one - with the general effect of the plant 'shuffling' a bit around on the property, potentially for centuries.
Nice thing about nuclear power stuff is that if you can let it sit for a few years it generally becomes a lot less radioactive and easier to work with.
Well, it would vary quite a bit - how much space each plant 'takes up', how much is owned around it varies by OOMS. Palo Verde has 4k acres.
Surry Power Station, on the other hand, only has 840 acres. Commissioned in 1972 it's more likely to be decomissioned sooner than Palo Verde.
Still, per the NEI all nuclear waste nuclear fuel for the last 50 years would fit in a football field to a depth of 7 yards. Given that a football field is 1.3 acres, I'm confident that you could fit a few eons worth of waste fuel into the Surry site. Accepting low and medium level waste would shorten the ability to store it substantially.
OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.
Are the byproducts economically useful? No.*
Are they hazardous? Yes.
Then it's waste. The radioactivity makes it 'nuclear', for a limited definition of nuclear(IE you have to really stretch; you'll be poisoned chemically long before the radiation hurts you).
Still, I can't help but think that part of the problem is that since the power plants were constructed we completely rewrote the book on what's required in decommissioning it, besides inflation alone.
Really, it's a good thing most nuclear power plants are operating longer - the longer they run the bigger that decommissioning fund grows.
*Some are, of course.
I ran a few classes when I went back to university to do some postgraduate study after some years in industry.
See how annoying it is when you do it to me?
The posts above entitled "Let's try thinking through an example" and "I think I see where you have a problem" cover it very well so I wish you would stop pretending I have not already done so.
Neither of which were actually sourced. But note what I did when you did the example. Did I attack you or did I address your statements? I addressed your statements. Even with evidence in some cases. I agreed with points that I agree with/also believe to be true, and for parts I disagree with, I also gave reasons why I disagree with them.
You been making incredibly stupid statements such as "Hawaii is darn near perfect test case in the USA" and pretending that not only such a stupid thing is true but an even more stupid extrapolation from 10% to 120% in Hawaii is true.
Okay, why ISN'T Hawaii a good test case? I'm not saying that things wouldn't be different elsewhere, but it's uniquely placed to be the leader in demonstrating what a preponderance of solar energy does to a real-world grid.
As for the 'stupid extrapolation' you do realize that those are two different real world numbers, right?
10% of households on Oahu have solar panels installed.
120% of DML(Daily Minimum Load) is the standard limit HECO, the island's electric company, has imposed on small solar installs on the island in order to be connected to the grid. They have done this in the name of grid stability, safety, etc...
So in short, they're not extrapolations at all. At MOST I extrapolated that in a grid where solar power had already reached 100% of DML for 25% of substations and they were anticipating 100% of the island reaching 100% in six months that reaching 120%(of DML) wouldn't take much longer.
"You've been handing down edicts and setting conditions."
Edicts? Conditions, in the sense of 'If X then Y', sure. "If (roughly) 20% of households install solar power systems(that average 100% net) THEN the power companies will need to rework how they do business".
Of course, you have to finish with a personal attack again. You love those, don't you?
Nice. A personal attack on my professionalism. My students in the 1990s never tried that when they were out of their depth - instead they acted like adults and checked their work.
Now you're claiming to be a teacher? I certainly hope you didn't teach your classes like you've attempted to 'teach' me. I assume that you actually TAUGHT your students, assuming you had any. You've failed to teach me anything. I'm not in your class, I'm not taking a test.
If you want to make it like a classroom, I've raised my hand and asked a question, and your response has been to call me stupid, deliberately lying, and indoctrinated while misrepresenting my position. That's neither educating or belief changing.
Identify, specifically where I'm wrong. Explain why it's wrong, provide the correct answer/situation, and citations are preferable, especially when I'm citing sources. Given that it's me, you can expect that once I have a *specific* topic to check that I will do so. 'Nu-huh' is grade school refutation, you have to go beyond that.
Then keep in mind that way back in the beginning I was simply trying to explain why installing energy efficient devices to save X kwh is different than simply putting solar panels up that generate X kwh. I know I didn't do the best job of it, I'd do better today, but that's life. I learn and it's not like I'm doing a professional paper with the attendant days/weeks of editing available.
Heck, I could probably summarize the original topic thusly:
"Energy saving appliances tend to drop load overall, especially peaks, while solar panels only drop load during the day/sunlight hours, potentially even returning energy to the grid. The power company's actions to maintain grid stability if large numbers of households do one or the other varies somewhat'.
You've been trying to make a "debate" out of pretending some stupid lies are real instead of just taking a correction at face value.
You've offered a grand total of ONE specific correction(solar reduces the need for additional power plants, which I accepted). Otherwise you make vague comments that amount to 'Nu-huh'.