Thing is, we're running out of oil that's easy(IE cheap) to extract. If Exxon either developed or bought and commercialized a patented process that produced an analogue to light sweet crude* for $50/barrel, they'd clean up. They'd rather expand and exploit that process than risk billions in new deep off shore oil platforms, which wouldn't be able to pull up oil for less than $50/barrel anyways. Or dealing with other countries where they have to worry about the government of the country nationalizing the rigs.
*I know, it wouldn't be exact, but most of the artificialy generated stuff I've heard about is actually easier to refine into stuff. Heck, as I understand it the oil resulting from thermal depolymerization can pretty much be poured straight into a diesel engine.
People do what they have to in order to get by, and none of us are perfect. We can fall victim to poverty, addiction, depression, etc.... That doesn't fundamentally change who we are, or necessarily take away our ability to recover.
Did you miss the part where I was implying that if we were to legalize drugs, that the majority of this violence would go away? That this would be a good thing? Step 2 would be to take all the resources currently going towards fighting the drug war and put it to fixing other problems here in the states. Like actually offering effective counseling/treatment for mental disorders.
Do you really think the world is divided between "good people" and "bad people"?
No. There's extremely good people, there's extremely bad/evil people, but most are shades of grey. I'll tell you what - you don't go threatening people's lives and I won't kill you. It doesn't matter to me if you're on a bad trip, suffering from temporary insanity from a bad drug interaction. You're a threat to others, so I'll take you down. Lacking that, I'll leave you alone.
Arguably, if guns are less accessible, there will be the same number of suicide attempts, but possibly fewer actual deaths.
Not if Japan is any example. They manage to have a suicide rate higher than the US's combined murder and suicide rate, without a significant number of firearms.
Substitution is high, and success vs failure is more easily tracable by sex in the USA than method. It's one of the oddities that more women attempt suicide than men, but more men commit suicide - Men are about three times more likely to succeed. Of course, men are more likely to use a firearm, but lacking that they'll go for other 'high success' options. Perhaps ones more dangerous to others, like running their vehicle into oncoming traffic(actually happened, the woman survived, but killed three others).
There was a nice take on that Rifle vs Pistol issue in Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1967... starring Clint Eastwood). It didn't turn out well for the guy with the rifle, but that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes.
Movies, even ones starring Clint, aren't normally very good representations on firearm usage and effectiveness in the real world.
A handgun is, well, handier than a rifle. On the other hand a rifle is more accurate at pretty much any range and more powerful to boot. Doesn't mean that a smart and skilled person with a handgun can't take out somebody with a rifle - but it takes much more skill and luck. To put it in gaming turns - the person with the handgun rolls 1D6, the rifleman 1D20. High roll wins.
why aren't the farmers/ranchers aware of the fact that they don't need to be carrying those guns everywhere they go
Don't need to, but why bother emptying the truck out when they don't think they'd need it? Then they have to remember to put it back! Or maybe they're running to town from the fields to get something, not stopping at home. Etc...
It wasn't too long ago that I had to use my firearm when I didn't expect to. It was to put down a car struck deer - multiple broken legs. It was the quickest, most humane method I had available. The deer was thrashing too much for a knife to be a clean kill.
I am aware that you can legally own a firearm in Japan. They're also 'may issue', and the issuance is extremely rare. They're effectively around DC in difficulty in most areas. In context I'm also talking about 'for self defense', which your very link points out, self defense is not a valid reason. At any point police can, and often do, say no.
As I pointed out in another link, Japan's suicide rate is such that it exceeds the USA's murder and suicide rates combined. While I normally support a person committing suicide in substitute of committing murder, I think that that indicates a serious problem with Japan's culture.
If you read some of my other posts, I make the point that culture makes a very big difference in violent crime rates. Japanese emigrants into the USA have even lower rates of committing violent crimes in the USA. Sad, but true, black violence is vastly disproportionate from their population. To the point that removing all of them would drop us to around Europe's crime rate. Personally, I blame the inner city culture.
Also, historically, when you combine multiple ethnic groups crime rates soar; under that context it's amazing the US crime rate is so low.
Such a rant, so misguided. I'm sorry I forgot to stick 'violent' in ahead of criminal.
When I was referring to criminals, I was talking about violent ones - the ones in gangs, the mob, etc... The illegality of drugs has created an underground criminal network, and they fight and kill each other over territory, supplies, disputes. Territory that wouldn't matter if drugs were legal. Supplies that could be had out of a catalog. Disputes could be settled in court.
People moving here from out-of-state should be required to attend an orientation class to learn these things. There's way too many people from out-of-state coming here from places like California and then freaking out when they see people with guns.
The especially funny part is that open carry is legal in most of California.
Gramps needs to upgrade. A.22 is cheap to shoot but it's not going to do a lot against anything bigger than a raccoon. For his sake, I hope he never needs to confront a rabid dog, a bear or a human.
Good luck convincing gramps of that. He's carried that gun around the last 40 years. It's mostly used to finish off animals caught in his traps. When hitting it with a stick wasn't really an option.
He doesn't really have to worry about bears in his area, and he knows pretty much everybody in a hundred miles.
Note, I'm not calling you on this, but your bringing up the military reminded me.
This is for all you thinking it's all okay for a person in the military to be carrying, but not a law abiding citizen:
Your average CCW holder has more firearms experience than the average military member. Many have more shooting experience than the average police officer. Some CCW holders think nothing of going through a hundred rounds in an average weekend. A police officer might not even go through this in a year. There are members of the military who managed to perform a 20 year career without firing a hundred rounds.
Scary, huh? I've heard stories of air marshals leaving their weapon in a lavatory, both in the airport and on the plane. One police chief has left his firearm in various places at least 3 times. Weapons have been stolen from cruisers. Police officers have shot and killed innocent people, not to mention non-resisting suspects.
Despite all this, it hasn't made the news about CCW holders leaving their weapons laying around. Even though in many states permit holders drastically outnumber the police.
I'm pretty sure rifles and shotguns don't even have background checks.
I figure he was talking about the federal NICS check, which is a requirement for any firearm sale by a dealer in the USA.
When I bought my XD-45, I think they did the background check in about the time it took to ring up the purchase at the register.
No mention of the thoroughness of the check.;)
For Uninformed Americans, Europeans, and people from other parts of the world, the NICS check is a simple criminal background check - along with some minor ties into mental health for people who have been committed by a court.
If you want a full auto weapon, the check is much more thorough.
Probably. Here nobody carries guns. Farmers are no exception. When the hunting season is open you can go hunt, but only with guns that are allowed for hunting (you can't carry a Kalashnikov for example) and only in those areas.
You might be surprised. They probably keep them out of sight because of people like you. As for guns allowed for hunting, I find it interesting that you specified a 'Kalashnikov'. AK actions are actually very popular for hunting in Russia. Presumably you're talking about the AK-47, which is indeed not normally suitable for hunting. On the other hand, it's terminal ballistics are very similar to my.30-30, which has a long history as a very popular deer round.
On the other hand, the SKS can be very useful for it. Heck, the AR-15 'Poodle shooter' is actually a good small game round.
Do you have to get a gun-license to carry a gun in America, or can anyone buy one? If I have some psychological problem will I be able to buy one?
1. Most areas no, and yes, as long as they aren't a felon, committed, under 18 for long guns or 21 for hand guns. 2. Depends on whether or not it was bad enough for you to be committed to a mental health institution by a court.
Well, if you hunt you are probably in the the middle of the wood or something, and it's hunting season. Or can anyone go hunt everywhere with whatever gun he/she likes? I am asking. I am really curious as to how it works over there.
The rules vary by state, but generally: 1. It's always hunting season for something. Farmers/Ranchers are always allowed to shoot(IE kill) nuisance animals - feral dogs, for example. 2. Location - you can't hunt from the road, though distance from a road varies. Hunting within city limits is generally disallowed, though sometimes a special season for bowhunters will be opened if there is a particular problem with a game animal inside a city. Some cities hire 'professional hunters' for big $$$, others have realized that they can get hunters to pay for the privilege, while still being able to enforce a higher skill standard. Such as using quiet and short ranged bows. 3. The rules for hunting generally have minimum round size/power for large game hunting(IE deer and up). In many states, the popular 5.56x54 and 7.62x39 are considered too light for deer. For bird hunting, magazine limits are common. Some states have banned the.50BMG, mostly because of complaints by city folk. Reportably, at least one hunter switched over to a.600 Nitro.
I don't know if the higher violet crimes depend from gun control or not. Can you link some studies? I think that would be very difficult to prove.
It's more culture than gun availability. For example, if I was in your country I'd merely need access to a machine shop for several hours I'd build a firearm. In Japan, their murder rate is really low, but their suicide rate is so high that it actually exceeds the USA's suicide and murder rate combined. Mexico has extremely strict gun control - but their murder rate from machine guns exceeds our firearm rate.
Fix a couple problems with our system, mainly the WOD, and the US murder rate would plummet, including those from guns.
I guess it's a cultural thing, but I would *never* feel comfortable having someone in sight wearing or holding a gun whoi is not a policeman or a guard or something.
And that's the problem - you're 'feeling', you're not 'thinking'.
A farmer or rancher often has reason to be carrying a firearm. This is normally either a rifle or a shotgun, mainly because either has serious advantages over a handgun. It is used to control the local pest population, acquire food, etc... It's not normally used against humans.
As for carrying, in most areas of the USA there's the assumption that there are many good people, who, while not police, military, or security, are perfectly capable of handling a firearm responsibly. This includes hunting and self defense. In most states you can get a 'CCW permit', enabling the holder to carry a firearm concealed. Despite fear mongering, we do not whip it out routinely as a dick measuring contest. We are not looking to ventilate somebody. We merely wish to have an extremely effective means of defense available if somebody not willing to play by the rules attempts to cause us harm. Areas in the USA that attempt to ban guns historically have higher violent crime rates than those that don't.
By the same token, crime rates DROP when people are allowed more effective means to defend themselves, and tend to increase when they aren't. Look at what's happening in Britain, for example. They've banned guns, yet gun crime is on the rise, and now they're looking at banning knives, swords, bats, and everything else. Heck, there was a school shooting in Germany around 7 years ago that had more fatalities than Columbine. There was an incident in Japan with a big knife/short sword that had about a dozen fatalities.
We'd do far more good cleaning up our health care system, getting out of the 'war on drugs' mess than trying to ban guns.
Additionally, most firearm murders* are criminal on criminal. If you're not a criminal, hanging out with criminals, you're as safe or safer in the United States than you are elsewhere. Personally, I blame the war on drugs.
*I'm excluding suicides because they'd just find another, and accidents because the real accident rate is insignificant.
First, I probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.
For the rest, I'll agree with you. I think that the others aren't arguing with the leaving, just the remarks, showing a hint of panic and alarm, at a couple of guns in a truck on the property. There's no mention that they were in somebody's hands, for example.
Generally it's not a good idea to get in a gun fight with a rancher on their own property.
Generally, I'd say that it's not a good idea to get into a fight with anybody on their own property.;)
But yeah, gun fight with a rancher is even worse: 1. Rancher will probably respond with a rifle. Rifle > pistol. 2. Rancher most likely has means of the old saw 'shovel and 40 acres'. Yes, it's a joke. It's also a scary possibility.
There's a difference between carrying a firearm and having one available in the truck. It doesn't even have to be visible, it might be in a gun case or sleeve for protection behind the seats. My grandfather, who traps, keeps a.22 revolver under his seat most of the time. For a rancher or farmer, a firearm is a tool, and often thought of about as much as a cordless drill.
There's enough gun weenies out there that it's often not worth the hassle if somebody panics when you're in town.
All this discounts concealed carry. Not to mention that they might have been carrying and you simply didn't realize it. I'm part of the firearms community that concerns itself with self defense. This includes both concealed and unconcealed carry. People who carry unconcealed have reported that an amazing amount of people never realize that they're carrying.
We're not normally talking about a chrome plated six shooter in a tooled leather harness with silver highlights, here. We're talking a flat black firearm in a black leather or synthetic holster. If they're carrying one of the smaller ones, perhaps with a shirt bloused a bit over the top, it can easily be mistaken for a blackberry or other such device.
Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear in some respects.
I much prefer the SC to be telling congress, the president, and the rest of the government what they can't do, rather than what they can do.
IE not allow congress to say that a crop, grown on the farmer's own land, fed to the farmer's own cattle, which are sold within the state, is NOT interstate congress because if he hadn't grown the crop, he might of purchased it from an out of state source.
On the abortion angle, I was talking about all abortions - not just third trimester. 1st trimester - failures of birth control, rape, general stupidity/not ready for a child. Second - detected birth defects, genetic problems, and such. Third - Health & Safety of mother. A reason valid for a later trimester is valid earlier, of course.
Oh, I agree in philosophy, realistically I believe that the 9th was meant more on a limitation of government's power.
IE a 'you can't do what we didn't tell you you could do'.
What I'm trying to get at, is that some people have some rather insane ideas of 'rights'.
Some people believe that they have the right to 'not be offended'. Whether that be gays, catholics, sex ed, the color purple, etc... Over in Europe, proposed constitutional amendments include 'affordable housing'. Doesn't matter if you have no income, the government is supposed to give you a house. Similar items like health care and food have been seen. Call me a hard ass, but a 'right' isn't something that should cost others to give you. They should be freedoms - not subsidies.
I stand by my belief that it's better for the legislature to define stuff in a clear manner. Or, to put it another way, I prefer when they tell the government they can't do something over telling them to do something.
Can I make a giant leap here? We are in this mess today because of slavery. While it was necessary to have it abolished, the defeat of the South solidified power/control being stripped at the state level.
I most definitely agree with you. The civil war resulted in a number of precedents that gave the federal government far more power. Other points would be the change of making Senators directly elected instead of chosen by the individual state legislatures. Before that, the individuals selected would serve their people, but more indirectly. IE the the senators from Virginia would represent Virginia, not the people in district 1 or 2. Part of that would be NOT granting the federal government too much power.
WWII, the great depression, a couple of additional points of expanding federal government.
but which others might call "'legislating from the bench', inventing rights." Two off the top of my head: Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rights), and Mapp v. Ohio (inadmissible evidence).
I'd still say that they should err on the side of FOLLOWING the constitution. Miranda fits neatly in with the fifth, but as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be necessary. Most people today know about the fifth. Though, yes, in part it's from the popularization of Miranda. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been handled through proper law - whether that be education about it in the schools, or an outright law that requires the statement. Today, it seems to be used more as an excuse to throw out confessions and such.
As for Mapp vs Ohio, I believe that it could have been much cleaner if it was done by law and not bench. Again, it's a fairly straight forward fit into the fourth.
Call it a personal foible. For example, I'd prefer that the unconstitutional(in my mind) firearm ban in Washington DC be fixed by the legislature and president. But I'm not going to object to it being thrown out by the SC(it's currently before them). I wouldn't object to the closing of the NFA being found unconstitutional, but I'd prefer congress did it the proper way.
I agree, though you'll still get odd 'liberal' and 'conservative' readings of the constitution. Especially stuff that isn't cut and dried in the constitution, such as abortion.
For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today.
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply. Especially from circuit courts, I've seen torturous readings of laws to essentially try to say that the law means the opposite of what it says.
And yes, this includes stuff like same sex marriage, abortion, discrimination, etc... It's not that I actually have a problem with same sex marriage*. I'm generally pro-choice**, and I don't care whether you're white, yellow, or black. Don't even care if you're green or purple other than curiosity as to how you got to be that way.
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. For that matter, I tend to think that legislators who propose, vote for, and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws should be fired.
*I'm of the opinion it should be civil unions for all, if you want to call yourself married find a priest, priestess, rabbi, mullah, witchdoctor, whatever willing to perform the ceremony. **for first trimester, second should require some special circumstances, and third some serious medical issue(like it being discovered that said baby has no brain, and will die within a week of birth even with life support). If it should be done, the morning-after pill should be used. It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. On the other hand, if you're such a dumbass, you shouldn't be having kids anyways.
Electric trains can use regenerative braking -- when they brake, the energy is fed back into the power grid.
Duh. It's not a bad solution except for the little problem in the USA that you need electrified rails for that, and hardly any of our rails are.
So you have to look at what saves the most resources: Electrified rails take more resources, but can save more diesel than a hybrid train, but hybrids are cheaper, individually at least. An excessively busy line might make it cheaper to just electrify chunks of it - like steep hills, common stopping points. Other areas with lower traffic the hybrids would make more sense.
Doing it to reduce noise is different than doing it to save money.
I know full well that they exist, but doing it does require extra infrastructure, so it becomes a question of which is more economical. Electrified switching yards saves a lot of fuel going in and out of them. True hybrid trains can save fuel when they're forced to slow down and speed up outside a switching yard.
It calls for spreadsheets and people more familiar with trains and hybrid systems than I.
first, I had a typo: "a lack of a mechanical link"
Like I said, I'm not sure that a 'true' hybrid locomotive would be that economical compared to keeping diesel-electrics more or less as they are, just adding the ability to run off of or dump electricity to a third rail.
I know they're making a true hybrid; it can even make sense in a number of situations. I just think that there are perhaps better options for general conditions.
As for the switchers - you're talking about the mini-locomotives used to shuttle cars around switching yards, right? I've heard about making them hybrids as well. Makes sense for them, you can get by with a much smaller, and therefore more efficient, engine. You're having to add weight anyways, so the weight of a lead-acid battery pack isn't an issue. Reducing emissions around where people are working is good. Doesn't take much for the system to save money, especially today.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, we're running out of oil that's easy(IE cheap) to extract. If Exxon either developed or bought and commercialized a patented process that produced an analogue to light sweet crude* for $50/barrel, they'd clean up. They'd rather expand and exploit that process than risk billions in new deep off shore oil platforms, which wouldn't be able to pull up oil for less than $50/barrel anyways. Or dealing with other countries where they have to worry about the government of the country nationalizing the rigs.
*I know, it wouldn't be exact, but most of the artificialy generated stuff I've heard about is actually easier to refine into stuff. Heck, as I understand it the oil resulting from thermal depolymerization can pretty much be poured straight into a diesel engine.
People do what they have to in order to get by, and none of us are perfect. We can fall victim to poverty, addiction, depression, etc.... That doesn't fundamentally change who we are, or necessarily take away our ability to recover.
Did you miss the part where I was implying that if we were to legalize drugs, that the majority of this violence would go away? That this would be a good thing? Step 2 would be to take all the resources currently going towards fighting the drug war and put it to fixing other problems here in the states. Like actually offering effective counseling/treatment for mental disorders.
Do you really think the world is divided between "good people" and "bad people"?
No. There's extremely good people, there's extremely bad/evil people, but most are shades of grey. I'll tell you what - you don't go threatening people's lives and I won't kill you. It doesn't matter to me if you're on a bad trip, suffering from temporary insanity from a bad drug interaction. You're a threat to others, so I'll take you down. Lacking that, I'll leave you alone.
Arguably, if guns are less accessible, there will be the same number of suicide attempts, but possibly fewer actual deaths.
Not if Japan is any example. They manage to have a suicide rate higher than the US's combined murder and suicide rate, without a significant number of firearms.
Substitution is high, and success vs failure is more easily tracable by sex in the USA than method. It's one of the oddities that more women attempt suicide than men, but more men commit suicide - Men are about three times more likely to succeed. Of course, men are more likely to use a firearm, but lacking that they'll go for other 'high success' options. Perhaps ones more dangerous to others, like running their vehicle into oncoming traffic(actually happened, the woman survived, but killed three others).
There was a nice take on that Rifle vs Pistol issue in Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1967... starring Clint Eastwood). It didn't turn out well for the guy with the rifle, but that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes.
Movies, even ones starring Clint, aren't normally very good representations on firearm usage and effectiveness in the real world.
A handgun is, well, handier than a rifle. On the other hand a rifle is more accurate at pretty much any range and more powerful to boot. Doesn't mean that a smart and skilled person with a handgun can't take out somebody with a rifle - but it takes much more skill and luck. To put it in gaming turns - the person with the handgun rolls 1D6, the rifleman 1D20. High roll wins.
why aren't the farmers/ranchers aware of the fact that they don't need to be carrying those guns everywhere they go
Don't need to, but why bother emptying the truck out when they don't think they'd need it? Then they have to remember to put it back! Or maybe they're running to town from the fields to get something, not stopping at home. Etc...
It wasn't too long ago that I had to use my firearm when I didn't expect to. It was to put down a car struck deer - multiple broken legs. It was the quickest, most humane method I had available. The deer was thrashing too much for a knife to be a clean kill.
I am aware that you can legally own a firearm in Japan. They're also 'may issue', and the issuance is extremely rare. They're effectively around DC in difficulty in most areas. In context I'm also talking about 'for self defense', which your very link points out, self defense is not a valid reason. At any point police can, and often do, say no.
As I pointed out in another link, Japan's suicide rate is such that it exceeds the USA's murder and suicide rates combined. While I normally support a person committing suicide in substitute of committing murder, I think that that indicates a serious problem with Japan's culture.
If you read some of my other posts, I make the point that culture makes a very big difference in violent crime rates. Japanese emigrants into the USA have even lower rates of committing violent crimes in the USA. Sad, but true, black violence is vastly disproportionate from their population. To the point that removing all of them would drop us to around Europe's crime rate. Personally, I blame the inner city culture.
Also, historically, when you combine multiple ethnic groups crime rates soar; under that context it's amazing the US crime rate is so low.
So criminals deserve to die?
Such a rant, so misguided. I'm sorry I forgot to stick 'violent' in ahead of criminal.
When I was referring to criminals, I was talking about violent ones - the ones in gangs, the mob, etc... The illegality of drugs has created an underground criminal network, and they fight and kill each other over territory, supplies, disputes. Territory that wouldn't matter if drugs were legal. Supplies that could be had out of a catalog. Disputes could be settled in court.
People moving here from out-of-state should be required to attend an orientation class to learn these things. There's way too many people from out-of-state coming here from places like California and then freaking out when they see people with guns.
The especially funny part is that open carry is legal in most of California.
Gramps needs to upgrade. A .22 is cheap to shoot but it's not going to do a lot against anything bigger than a raccoon. For his sake, I hope he never needs to confront a rabid dog, a bear or a human.
Good luck convincing gramps of that. He's carried that gun around the last 40 years. It's mostly used to finish off animals caught in his traps. When hitting it with a stick wasn't really an option.
He doesn't really have to worry about bears in his area, and he knows pretty much everybody in a hundred miles.
Me, I carry a 9mm.
Note, I'm not calling you on this, but your bringing up the military reminded me.
This is for all you thinking it's all okay for a person in the military to be carrying, but not a law abiding citizen:
Your average CCW holder has more firearms experience than the average military member. Many have more shooting experience than the average police officer. Some CCW holders think nothing of going through a hundred rounds in an average weekend. A police officer might not even go through this in a year. There are members of the military who managed to perform a 20 year career without firing a hundred rounds.
Scary, huh? I've heard stories of air marshals leaving their weapon in a lavatory, both in the airport and on the plane. One police chief has left his firearm in various places at least 3 times. Weapons have been stolen from cruisers. Police officers have shot and killed innocent people, not to mention non-resisting suspects.
Despite all this, it hasn't made the news about CCW holders leaving their weapons laying around. Even though in many states permit holders drastically outnumber the police.
I'm pretty sure rifles and shotguns don't even have background checks.
;)
I figure he was talking about the federal NICS check, which is a requirement for any firearm sale by a dealer in the USA.
When I bought my XD-45, I think they did the background check in about the time it took to ring up the purchase at the register.
No mention of the thoroughness of the check.
For Uninformed Americans, Europeans, and people from other parts of the world, the NICS check is a simple criminal background check - along with some minor ties into mental health for people who have been committed by a court.
If you want a full auto weapon, the check is much more thorough.
Probably. Here nobody carries guns. Farmers are no exception. When the hunting season is open you can go hunt, but only with guns that are allowed for hunting (you can't carry a Kalashnikov for example) and only in those areas.
.30-30, which has a long history as a very popular deer round.
.50BMG, mostly because of complaints by city folk. Reportably, at least one hunter switched over to a .600 Nitro.
You might be surprised. They probably keep them out of sight because of people like you. As for guns allowed for hunting, I find it interesting that you specified a 'Kalashnikov'. AK actions are actually very popular for hunting in Russia. Presumably you're talking about the AK-47, which is indeed not normally suitable for hunting. On the other hand, it's terminal ballistics are very similar to my
On the other hand, the SKS can be very useful for it. Heck, the AR-15 'Poodle shooter' is actually a good small game round.
Do you have to get a gun-license to carry a gun in America, or can anyone buy one? If I have some psychological problem will I be able to buy one?
1. Most areas no, and yes, as long as they aren't a felon, committed, under 18 for long guns or 21 for hand guns.
2. Depends on whether or not it was bad enough for you to be committed to a mental health institution by a court.
Well, if you hunt you are probably in the the middle of the wood or something, and it's hunting season. Or can anyone go hunt everywhere with whatever gun he/she likes? I am asking. I am really curious as to how it works over there.
The rules vary by state, but generally:
1. It's always hunting season for something. Farmers/Ranchers are always allowed to shoot(IE kill) nuisance animals - feral dogs, for example.
2. Location - you can't hunt from the road, though distance from a road varies. Hunting within city limits is generally disallowed, though sometimes a special season for bowhunters will be opened if there is a particular problem with a game animal inside a city. Some cities hire 'professional hunters' for big $$$, others have realized that they can get hunters to pay for the privilege, while still being able to enforce a higher skill standard. Such as using quiet and short ranged bows.
3. The rules for hunting generally have minimum round size/power for large game hunting(IE deer and up). In many states, the popular 5.56x54 and 7.62x39 are considered too light for deer. For bird hunting, magazine limits are common. Some states have banned the
I don't know if the higher violet crimes depend from gun control or not. Can you link some studies? I think that would be very difficult to prove.
It's more culture than gun availability. For example, if I was in your country I'd merely need access to a machine shop for several hours I'd build a firearm. In Japan, their murder rate is really low, but their suicide rate is so high that it actually exceeds the USA's suicide and murder rate combined. Mexico has extremely strict gun control - but their murder rate from machine guns exceeds our firearm rate.
Fix a couple problems with our system, mainly the WOD, and the US murder rate would plummet, including those from guns.
I guess it's a cultural thing, but I would *never* feel comfortable having someone in sight wearing or holding a gun whoi is not a policeman or a guard or something.
And that's the problem - you're 'feeling', you're not 'thinking'.
A farmer or rancher often has reason to be carrying a firearm. This is normally either a rifle or a shotgun, mainly because either has serious advantages over a handgun. It is used to control the local pest population, acquire food, etc... It's not normally used against humans.
As for carrying, in most areas of the USA there's the assumption that there are many good people, who, while not police, military, or security, are perfectly capable of handling a firearm responsibly. This includes hunting and self defense. In most states you can get a 'CCW permit', enabling the holder to carry a firearm concealed. Despite fear mongering, we do not whip it out routinely as a dick measuring contest. We are not looking to ventilate somebody. We merely wish to have an extremely effective means of defense available if somebody not willing to play by the rules attempts to cause us harm. Areas in the USA that attempt to ban guns historically have higher violent crime rates than those that don't.
By the same token, crime rates DROP when people are allowed more effective means to defend themselves, and tend to increase when they aren't. Look at what's happening in Britain, for example. They've banned guns, yet gun crime is on the rise, and now they're looking at banning knives, swords, bats, and everything else. Heck, there was a school shooting in Germany around 7 years ago that had more fatalities than Columbine. There was an incident in Japan with a big knife/short sword that had about a dozen fatalities.
We'd do far more good cleaning up our health care system, getting out of the 'war on drugs' mess than trying to ban guns.
Additionally, most firearm murders* are criminal on criminal. If you're not a criminal, hanging out with criminals, you're as safe or safer in the United States than you are elsewhere. Personally, I blame the war on drugs.
*I'm excluding suicides because they'd just find another, and accidents because the real accident rate is insignificant.
I was just thinking the exact same thing...
Only I wasn't restricting it to the 740th. Of course, I initially thought of MUNS areas, but they'd get stopped sooner trying to get on base.
First, I probably wouldn't have been there in the first place.
;)
For the rest, I'll agree with you. I think that the others aren't arguing with the leaving, just the remarks, showing a hint of panic and alarm, at a couple of guns in a truck on the property. There's no mention that they were in somebody's hands, for example.
Generally it's not a good idea to get in a gun fight with a rancher on their own property.
Generally, I'd say that it's not a good idea to get into a fight with anybody on their own property.
But yeah, gun fight with a rancher is even worse:
1. Rancher will probably respond with a rifle. Rifle > pistol.
2. Rancher most likely has means of the old saw 'shovel and 40 acres'. Yes, it's a joke. It's also a scary possibility.
There's a difference between carrying a firearm and having one available in the truck. It doesn't even have to be visible, it might be in a gun case or sleeve for protection behind the seats. My grandfather, who traps, keeps a .22 revolver under his seat most of the time. For a rancher or farmer, a firearm is a tool, and often thought of about as much as a cordless drill.
There's enough gun weenies out there that it's often not worth the hassle if somebody panics when you're in town.
All this discounts concealed carry. Not to mention that they might have been carrying and you simply didn't realize it. I'm part of the firearms community that concerns itself with self defense. This includes both concealed and unconcealed carry. People who carry unconcealed have reported that an amazing amount of people never realize that they're carrying.
We're not normally talking about a chrome plated six shooter in a tooled leather harness with silver highlights, here. We're talking a flat black firearm in a black leather or synthetic holster. If they're carrying one of the smaller ones, perhaps with a shirt bloused a bit over the top, it can easily be mistaken for a blackberry or other such device.
Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear in some respects.
I much prefer the SC to be telling congress, the president, and the rest of the government what they can't do, rather than what they can do.
IE not allow congress to say that a crop, grown on the farmer's own land, fed to the farmer's own cattle, which are sold within the state, is NOT interstate congress because if he hadn't grown the crop, he might of purchased it from an out of state source.
On the abortion angle, I was talking about all abortions - not just third trimester. 1st trimester - failures of birth control, rape, general stupidity/not ready for a child. Second - detected birth defects, genetic problems, and such. Third - Health & Safety of mother. A reason valid for a later trimester is valid earlier, of course.
Oh, I agree in philosophy, realistically I believe that the 9th was meant more on a limitation of government's power.
IE a 'you can't do what we didn't tell you you could do'.
What I'm trying to get at, is that some people have some rather insane ideas of 'rights'.
Some people believe that they have the right to 'not be offended'. Whether that be gays, catholics, sex ed, the color purple, etc...
Over in Europe, proposed constitutional amendments include 'affordable housing'. Doesn't matter if you have no income, the government is supposed to give you a house. Similar items like health care and food have been seen. Call me a hard ass, but a 'right' isn't something that should cost others to give you. They should be freedoms - not subsidies.
I stand by my belief that it's better for the legislature to define stuff in a clear manner. Or, to put it another way, I prefer when they tell the government they can't do something over telling them to do something.
Can I make a giant leap here? We are in this mess today because of slavery. While it was necessary to have it abolished, the defeat of the South solidified power/control being stripped at the state level.
I most definitely agree with you. The civil war resulted in a number of precedents that gave the federal government far more power. Other points would be the change of making Senators directly elected instead of chosen by the individual state legislatures. Before that, the individuals selected would serve their people, but more indirectly. IE the the senators from Virginia would represent Virginia, not the people in district 1 or 2. Part of that would be NOT granting the federal government too much power.
WWII, the great depression, a couple of additional points of expanding federal government.
but which others might call "'legislating from the bench', inventing rights." Two off the top of my head: Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rights), and Mapp v. Ohio (inadmissible evidence).
I'd still say that they should err on the side of FOLLOWING the constitution. Miranda fits neatly in with the fifth, but as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be necessary. Most people today know about the fifth. Though, yes, in part it's from the popularization of Miranda. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been handled through proper law - whether that be education about it in the schools, or an outright law that requires the statement. Today, it seems to be used more as an excuse to throw out confessions and such.
As for Mapp vs Ohio, I believe that it could have been much cleaner if it was done by law and not bench. Again, it's a fairly straight forward fit into the fourth.
Call it a personal foible. For example, I'd prefer that the unconstitutional(in my mind) firearm ban in Washington DC be fixed by the legislature and president. But I'm not going to object to it being thrown out by the SC(it's currently before them). I wouldn't object to the closing of the NFA being found unconstitutional, but I'd prefer congress did it the proper way.
I agree, though you'll still get odd 'liberal' and 'conservative' readings of the constitution. Especially stuff that isn't cut and dried in the constitution, such as abortion.
For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today.
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply. Especially from circuit courts, I've seen torturous readings of laws to essentially try to say that the law means the opposite of what it says.
And yes, this includes stuff like same sex marriage, abortion, discrimination, etc... It's not that I actually have a problem with same sex marriage*. I'm generally pro-choice**, and I don't care whether you're white, yellow, or black. Don't even care if you're green or purple other than curiosity as to how you got to be that way.
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. For that matter, I tend to think that legislators who propose, vote for, and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws should be fired.
*I'm of the opinion it should be civil unions for all, if you want to call yourself married find a priest, priestess, rabbi, mullah, witchdoctor, whatever willing to perform the ceremony.
**for first trimester, second should require some special circumstances, and third some serious medical issue(like it being discovered that said baby has no brain, and will die within a week of birth even with life support). If it should be done, the morning-after pill should be used. It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. On the other hand, if you're such a dumbass, you shouldn't be having kids anyways.
Electric trains can use regenerative braking -- when they brake, the energy is fed back into the power grid.
Duh. It's not a bad solution except for the little problem in the USA that you need electrified rails for that, and hardly any of our rails are.
So you have to look at what saves the most resources: Electrified rails take more resources, but can save more diesel than a hybrid train, but hybrids are cheaper, individually at least. An excessively busy line might make it cheaper to just electrify chunks of it - like steep hills, common stopping points. Other areas with lower traffic the hybrids would make more sense.
Doing it to reduce noise is different than doing it to save money.
I know full well that they exist, but doing it does require extra infrastructure, so it becomes a question of which is more economical. Electrified switching yards saves a lot of fuel going in and out of them. True hybrid trains can save fuel when they're forced to slow down and speed up outside a switching yard.
It calls for spreadsheets and people more familiar with trains and hybrid systems than I.
first, I had a typo: "a lack of a mechanical link"
Like I said, I'm not sure that a 'true' hybrid locomotive would be that economical compared to keeping diesel-electrics more or less as they are, just adding the ability to run off of or dump electricity to a third rail.
I know they're making a true hybrid; it can even make sense in a number of situations. I just think that there are perhaps better options for general conditions.
As for the switchers - you're talking about the mini-locomotives used to shuttle cars around switching yards, right? I've heard about making them hybrids as well. Makes sense for them, you can get by with a much smaller, and therefore more efficient, engine. You're having to add weight anyways, so the weight of a lead-acid battery pack isn't an issue. Reducing emissions around where people are working is good. Doesn't take much for the system to save money, especially today.
Man, you just described my Evil Overlord energy policy(Because being the president just isn't enough power to get this stuff done).
You want a position?