But the United States is not at war. Congress has made no such declaration, and there is no government (or in civil wars and revolutions, putative government) with which we are engaged in armed conflict.
Unneeded. There is no need for a country to formally declare war.
The "Global War on Terror" is a branding campaign for various acts of military agression; it is not a war.
It involved uniformed soldiers conducting military operations on foreign soil. Close enough. As for the terrorists, insurgents held as POWs, it sucks to be them. They have no clear release date other then 'when our administration feels like it'.
I'd still rather be held in gitmo than be held in a WWII German or USSR POW camp, much less North Korea or Vietnam.
Another point I'll make is that in many ways the UN and international law is in a more primitive state than for individuals inside first world countries. There's very much a problem of who'll enforce the law? In other words, as Country A, I can violate the civil rights of my civilians, as well as the people of Country B as much as I like until somebody comes along that's able and willing to stop me. Country B is likely to try to make Country A's life miserable, but if it's the proverbial 500 pound gorilla, and the next heavyweight is 300 pounds(and busy scratching it's ass), and Country B is a 75 pound lightweight, there's not much actual enforcement to be seen.
I once drafted up a budget for a 40hour/week minimum wage earner. It had money budgeted for food, housing, clothing, and transportation.
I came in at a $100/month under income. Were there sacrifices made? Darn tooten. No eating out, no premium steak*, sharing an apartment(and phone), and walking, taking public transportation, or sharing a vehicle** at worst. You can buy an older used vehicle for a couple grand.
Before you go on about healthcare, I'll point out that a minimum wage earner qualifies for a heck of a lot of governmental assistance, which I didn't account for at all.
Is it a 'nice' life? Nope. Is it livable? Definately. Is it vulnerable to any disaster? Yep, though I'll note that that first month's $100 excess could buy the items needed for a health adult to last a month with no services. Others on the board where it was discussed got a month's survival supplies down to around $40. I was considered spendthrift.;)
*cheap steak is about the same price as ground beef, thus occasionally allowed. **The way I figure it, a business being so cheap as to hire an adult for minimum wage doesn't deserve to get an employee with a car.
12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.
Considering that there are adults who have spend over 20 years in prison for a crime it turns out they didn't commit, 12 days is NOT a huge amount of time.
As for those that spent years in prison; many would be lucky to get 20k per year of imprisonment. Many get nothing, sometimes even less than somebody guilty who's being released for time served. The proven innocent just gets released, the guilty get employment and housing assistance. Heck, over in england they charge the innocent room&board!
Not that I don't think that there shouldn't be any compensation in this case; but I personally think that a couple thousand plus the family's legal bills should be enough. Of course, I also think that it'd be good for the state to set up a compensation fund for people who are found innocent(as opposed to not guilty), but have been imprisoned for an extended period of time.
They do have a status that allows imprisonment without determination of innocence or guilt, or even accusation of a crime.
Prisoner of War. POWs are allowed to be held until the end of the conflict; or the end of the prisoner's ability to participate in said war*.
Now, the way they're being held violates rules for holding a POW, but that's a different matter. Many have also been accused of being unlawful combatants, which alters the situation somewhat. Personally, I think that the administration has a point about many held there. Still, I would at least allow them the standard 'You're allowed to write letters home, we'll even arrange for delivery, but we're allowed to read all your mail**'.
*IE disabled grunts can be sent home. **For things like military secrets.
I don't go there. I did have a short coversation with the local mall when they slapped up generic signs listing mall rules, which included saying 'no weapons allowed'. I pointed out that criminals wouldn't obey the signs; CCW holders and police are not the problem - and the police carried anyways. I also pointed out that by denying me the right to carry my weapon that they may assume a legal responsability for my safety - if I or somebody under my care are harmed in a situation I might have prevented with my gun, it's their fault for not making up the security lost. They redid the signs, I'm not sure that it was because of me though. Did it for the local cell phone shop as well. Again, I think that that particular sign was a national generic, issued to all stores.
Besides, state law gives those signs no legal merit*, but if they feel the necessity I simply won't give them my business.
I HATE leaving a firearm 'in the car'. Cars get broken into and things stolen. While it hasn't happened to my car... If I have to visit the courthouse I generally leave it at home. I just wish we were like some of the other states where they're required to have secured lockers at the entrance for legal but prohibited items while I'm there.
*Worst case is they can tell me to leave and charge me with tresspassing if I don't. I'm not stupid, they tell me to leave I'm leaving.
While I have been indeed fortunate to have never been involved in a serious attack; or even a truly serious natural disaster, I have read accounts of many who have.
While our government does great things to protect the average person; it does fail occasionally. In my belief, a person is his or her own first and last line of defense. First because you're always around, not anybody else*. Last because, well, if everybody else fails, it's you who has the last chance to avoid suffering the consequences.
For example; in 99% of sitations, I feel that the average competant adult or family should be able to survive on their own for at least a week without the basic services. Maybe not comfortably, but survive in such a way that they don't require a hospital visit. At worst; a few gallons of clean water will enable this. A week of fasting for a halfway healthy adult won't lead to anything permanent. Add a dozen cans of non-perishable food and you're eating well. Up north a heating supply that isn't dependant upon electricity; even if it's only going to heat a single room. Heck, pile three or four families into a single home and you'll find that the heating demand for that house drops sharply.
For crime; I feel that we should take a stance of fighting it whenever possible. Yes, even to the point of risking more injury to ourselves. The end result is to make sure that crime doesn't pay. It's like the lawsuit craze; stores settled cases because settling was cheaper. Yet it was like the old paying of danegeld. It only encouraged the criminals/danes to return and do it again. The mugger depends on the average roll to give up his or her money without a fight. If every one of them fights back his job is rendered impossible.
*Unless you're somebody special like the president, or rich enough to hire your own bodyguards.
Crazy fact about the actual wild, wild west: It had a lower murder and violent crime rate than the cities back east.
It was considered wild in the true sense of the world: Untamed by (European) humans.
Please remember that the polite part comes with time and respect for life. Unfortuantly Gang-banger society hasn't developed the polite part yet; many of them have no respect for their own lives, that or they attack during what their perceive as moments of weakness in their enemies.
Societies where the bearing of arms was so routine as to be expected were generally quite polite.
Just look at Europe: they are stopped in so an early stage they don't even think on taking a gun to go killing children. *That* is effectiveness you crazy american society.
Umm... I spent two years in Germany. They just so happened to coincide with this incident.
I'd also be careful of the definition of 'child'. Also, I'd be concerned about the causes. For example, over half those deaths are suicides, yet Japan manages to have a suicide rate significantly higher than the USA, even without firearms.
The USA has always had a higher murder rate; and it's at it's highest in the areas where firearms are most restricted.
Personally, I tend to blame the drug war and welfare society we've bred in the inner cities.
I also carry around a larger than average first aid kit* in my car, know first aid, including how to use a tournequet and my CPR training is up to date. I know the operation of an AED**. Carry around a cell phone? Occasionally, though I don't give out the number to many people.
*It goes way beyond bandaids **AED: Automatic External defibrillator
Semi-automatic. And the odds are that some or most of those rushing are going to die. Still, at that point he'd probably have less than 10 rounds per gun, and firing two handed doesn't really work. Figure three-four shots per guy, he's out of ammo at three, allowing the other three to get him. End result; death toll at 10 or so, not 32(and counting?).
Maybe because even there it's not an easy thing to do. Ever faced down a man with a loaded weapon who's demonstrated he's quite competent with it and is using it effectively? Think five young people armed with iPods are going to "rush" such a guy?
Of course it's not an easy thing to do. Fact is, it's pretty much suicidal. But it would have saved more people. That's why the military awards medals for it. Hard to get medals.
And the only reason I suggest it was that they had already been disarmed by society in general and the school specifically. Even then, they'd probably been conditioned by previous training not to resist, in the hopes that it'd improve their chances of survival. In this case it didn't work. In most cases, actually, it doesn't work.
Depends upon the type of gun owner. There's the hunter type; who only owns shotguns and rifles. Then there's the CCW permit holder, who generally owns several handguns.
Carrying one without a holster is stupid. You're practically asking for it to fall out or get caught and shoot you. I carry pretty much everywhere it's legal for me to do so.
If nothing else; a bum rush with six or so students from close range should have resulted in fewer bodies; even if those rushing are statistically liklier to die. For the number of shots fired; the guy had to have reloaded.
It's the sort of thing the military gives medals out for.
Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns").
Actually, as others have stated, they are.
For example, even with a Virginia CCW license it's still illegal to carry a firearm in Virginia Tech, the area where this shooting occured.
There was a proposal to allow CCW holders to carry there, but it died in committee, and the schools public affairs guy made statements to the effect of 'allowing people to feel safe here'. Note the usage of the word 'feel' - Ie not actually safe, as it turned out.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the US occur in prohibited areas. I wonder why?
If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead. If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.
32 Dead and 15 wounded generally means at least 37 rounds fired, assuming that every round hit. The generaly capacity of a handgun is 6-16 rounds without reloading. The average criminal shooting is 3 rounds, still this isn't average.
In such a gunfight, we'd generally see a maximum of 32 rounds fired. That puts us at the same amount of dead as happened here, if every bullet killed somebody, which the odds are drastically against. Even in a crowded mall, there's generally more than 50% open area vs area with people. If nothing else, accidental hits are generally going to be less lethal than aimed fire at a head or chest. Think of it as the difference between a target gallery and a firefight; In the target gallery you can calmly aim each shot; resulting in a far higher hit ratio. In the other you fire faster hoping for a lucky hit before the other guy can shoot you.
Besides, that's a worst case scenario. Best case? The crooks a bad shot and doesn't manage to get any lethal shots before a CCW holder or police officer kills or disables him with one shot.
Possible scenarios: Bad guy goes in shooting; no CCW or police present; Result: massive casualties(see today, columbine) Bad guy goes in shooting; kills CCW holder before he can draw his weapon; Result: Same difference. Bad guy goes in shooting; neglected CCW holder draws and fires; capping BG from behind; Result: Body count drastically lower Bad guy goes in shooting; sees CCW holder draw; gunfight ensues; Worst case: Some people hit in crossfire; CCW holder goes down filled with holes. Moderate case: CCW holder delays gunman, forces him to expend entire magazine on him* in rapid fire, allowing more civilians to flee and time for the police to show up. Good Case: CCW holder fills gunman full of holes from his magazine; gunman drops, unable to continue slaughter.
*happened in texas.
The problem with Col. Cooper's statement is that killing people is seen as a bad thing, and is something that should be avoided. That is why soldiers and/or cops have to be authorized to use lethal force. A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.
That's were you don't get Cooper's belief system. He was a military man. Killing, as seen by him, is not necessarily an evil thing. There are even circumstances where it is the right thing to do. In the case of men with rifles conducting corrections; it's seen as a good thing, because the evil ones are otherwise uncorrectable.
As for your assertion that gun-free zones are in effect "unarmed victim zones," think about the fact that in our legal system there is a difference between manslaughter and murder; in order for murder to be committed, malice and forethought must be proved. If you piss someone with a gun off, they could very easily kill you, even if they weren't justified in their action. Without guns, it is a whole lot harder, involved, and personal to kill someone, and that means that fewer people will die.
CCW permit holders beat even police officers for violent crime rates. The gun is unique in that it allows an 80 year old grandmother the same chance to beat her attacker as a 300 pound professional linebacker.
Our point is that once somebody passes the line where they're willing to kill; no other laws will stop them. And despite what you say; people with CCW permits don't just generally go off killing people who piss them off. We're well aware of the consequences. To the point that a CCW holder getting into trouble is state/national news.
In my case the gun is either on me or in a special safe with an electronic lock that takes about three seconds to open; loaded w/round in chamber. It's against the rules of safety many nanny-types want (locked up with ammunition seperate), but it's secure enough for me. Too many wrong codes and the safe locks up for a half hour, as well as alerting me when I go to open it that bad codes have been entered.
This really has me ticked off. My main thought is 'couldn't somebody have stopped him?
I also get the LOAC briefing every year, and when they bother to mention the M2, it's been to specifically state that it's allowable for anti-personnel use.
I have also gone over the text of the Geneva conventions; and there are no mentions of caliber restrictions. Besides; even if there were, wouldn't they be more likely to be measured in mm, the Global/European method, rather than the US caliber system?
Bull. You can easily rip a persons foot off with a single 7.62mm shot. There's no way you can do that with a 9mm round fired from an mp5.
True, but a gut shot will have the 7.62 pass right through, while the 9mm punches a bigger hole. Generally people in combat aren't aiming at the feet. Then there's also the issue that you're much more likely to be shot by only 1 7.62 vs half a dozen 9mm.
Of course, there's the whole 'steel jacketed' issue. Most bullets are copper jacketed. Military rounds often have a steel core, but that's the opposite of a jacket.
You are with the right rules lawyer and the correct circumstances...
The best I can think of is a target that you have open, twisty holes to, but are protected from most HE effects to to depth underground, but the area involved is not conductive to bunker-busters (IE a cave network).
Still in most of those circumstances thermobaric rounds are used today. It's quicker, though I understand the main cause of death is asphixiation.
If a weapon is the most effective at the situation you've got; or even the average most effective at a number of ranges; it's pretty much allowed. If a weapon is nastier but not actually more effective; then you have a case under the suffering clause.
The M2.50BMG may be deployed for penetrating cover and destroying equipment such as vehicles; but it's still a machine gun and legal to use against enemy combatants, especially if it's what the troops have available.
The Geneva conventions take NO stance on the 12.5mm/50cal ammuntion and it's usage on humans. For that matter, shotguns loaded with slugs are larger in diameter. The whole 'aiming at equipment, such as a belt buckle', is most likely the result of somebody classifying the M2 as a 'anti-equipment' weapon, and the resulting stupidity of logic to make the system usefull against charging troops again.
Now,.50 caliber IS, by US law, considered the difference between rifle cartridges and artillery type stuff, for the most part..50BMG is a rifle round..54BMG would be in a different category. Now, there is a sporting purposes clause, meant to cover things like 12 Gauge shotguns (.73 cal), and large bore hunting rifles like the.700 AE(meant for hunting large game like rhinos and elephants), etc...
If the.50 were illegal, than what the heck are we doing running around with 30mm grenades, tank guns, and all that?
The Geneva conventions only restrict weapons that cause unnecessary harm and suffering. Stuff like glass rounds, which aren't more effective in removing the combat capability of a soldier, but makes treatment of his wounds(assuming he survives), a huge difficulty.
Expanding bullets(hollowpoints) are a big question mark. They're more effective at enacting a 'stop' on an unarmored target than FMJ for their caliber, but to do it they trade off penetration ability. The Hague conventions(US didn't sign), banned them, but they're the standard load for police and self-defense today, so the argument that they cause unnecessary suffering is shaky.
The 'certification' of HP, match grade bullets for sniping went like this: 1. The HP bullet is the most accurate bullet we've found, out of several dozen possible candidates, both HP and non-HP 2. Wound characteristics between the non-expanding HP and non HP versions were essentially the same. Therefore it's approved. I'd argue that even if it's more wounding(IE more likely to quickly kill the target), it'd still fit within the definitions. Take 9mm FMJ and 9mm HP. 9mm FMJ has something like an 80% stop rate* with a single chest hit, 9mm HP is around the 90% rate. It's outright more effective. Survival is slightly less for the HP rounds, but disability is about the same. Something nasty like a glass bullet would be more expensive, have a lower stop rate; yet a higher death and disability rate. Result: Unnecessary suffering, banned.
*rate at which the one hit is no longer able to pursue agressive actions within moments of being shot.
I'd say that they were developed for people without the use of a limb, for whatever reason. Helping those from would be a reason presented to the DoD/congress to get some money from them.
Overall, I'd love to learn Dvorak, but since I'm a QWERTY touch typist and work support(IE I'm frequently on other people's machines), I don't want to have to switch back and forth.
We aren't. It's required for feeding the yeast for rising.
Now, as to why they use HFCS instead of sugar...
Cost. Due to import tariffs sugar is more expensive than HFCS.
I'm trying to fight the tendency by switching to brands that use actual sugar. I find that they tend to taste better. It's sometimes difficult because I'm not concerned about the 'organic' label, but that's frequently the only option without HFCS, and it's 3X as expensive.
That would be nice. Nuclear plants have historically averaged only 80% up time - in fact in the 1980s is was 65%.
They pretty much are - From the article:
To put it another way, the US increase from 65% load factor in 1980s to 90% today is equivalent to adding 23,000 MWe capacity.
Oh, and on the other side; decentralization vs. centralization:
computers won decentralized; but their manufacture is very much centralized at a few large plants.
Please note that I don't disagree that decentralized power has a place in our overall solution. I just think that nuclear plants remain a strong possible solution to certain aspects of our power demand, providing the electricity needed to run factories and cities. Heck, coolocate the plant in the city to give them waste heat. Use some of the newer designs and waste heat to generate hydrogen or desalinate water.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, orange skins are edible, they just don't taste good to the average joe; so they end up being discarded or used as a spice.
Besides; they've tried marketing more fruits and vegetables; they generally fail though. Ever hear of the ugly fruit?
More Montgomery than California, I'll admit.
Then again, California has it's own minimum wage at $7.50.
You'd probably be poorer in LA with $7.50/hour, than $5.15 in Montgomery, I'll admit.
But then the question becomes a lot like the car. What's the business doing expecting a worker at Minimum in LA?
But the United States is not at war. Congress has made no such declaration, and there is no government (or in civil wars and revolutions, putative government) with which we are engaged in armed conflict.
Unneeded. There is no need for a country to formally declare war.
The "Global War on Terror" is a branding campaign for various acts of military agression; it is not a war.
It involved uniformed soldiers conducting military operations on foreign soil. Close enough. As for the terrorists, insurgents held as POWs, it sucks to be them. They have no clear release date other then 'when our administration feels like it'.
I'd still rather be held in gitmo than be held in a WWII German or USSR POW camp, much less North Korea or Vietnam.
Another point I'll make is that in many ways the UN and international law is in a more primitive state than for individuals inside first world countries. There's very much a problem of who'll enforce the law? In other words, as Country A, I can violate the civil rights of my civilians, as well as the people of Country B as much as I like until somebody comes along that's able and willing to stop me. Country B is likely to try to make Country A's life miserable, but if it's the proverbial 500 pound gorilla, and the next heavyweight is 300 pounds(and busy scratching it's ass), and Country B is a 75 pound lightweight, there's not much actual enforcement to be seen.
I once drafted up a budget for a 40hour/week minimum wage earner. It had money budgeted for food, housing, clothing, and transportation.
;)
I came in at a $100/month under income. Were there sacrifices made? Darn tooten. No eating out, no premium steak*, sharing an apartment(and phone), and walking, taking public transportation, or sharing a vehicle** at worst. You can buy an older used vehicle for a couple grand.
Before you go on about healthcare, I'll point out that a minimum wage earner qualifies for a heck of a lot of governmental assistance, which I didn't account for at all.
Is it a 'nice' life? Nope. Is it livable? Definately. Is it vulnerable to any disaster? Yep, though I'll note that that first month's $100 excess could buy the items needed for a health adult to last a month with no services. Others on the board where it was discussed got a month's survival supplies down to around $40. I was considered spendthrift.
*cheap steak is about the same price as ground beef, thus occasionally allowed.
**The way I figure it, a business being so cheap as to hire an adult for minimum wage doesn't deserve to get an employee with a car.
12 days is a huge time to be in jail, particularly if you did not do anything.
Considering that there are adults who have spend over 20 years in prison for a crime it turns out they didn't commit, 12 days is NOT a huge amount of time.
As for those that spent years in prison; many would be lucky to get 20k per year of imprisonment. Many get nothing, sometimes even less than somebody guilty who's being released for time served. The proven innocent just gets released, the guilty get employment and housing assistance. Heck, over in england they charge the innocent room&board!
Not that I don't think that there shouldn't be any compensation in this case; but I personally think that a couple thousand plus the family's legal bills should be enough. Of course, I also think that it'd be good for the state to set up a compensation fund for people who are found innocent(as opposed to not guilty), but have been imprisoned for an extended period of time.
They do have a status that allows imprisonment without determination of innocence or guilt, or even accusation of a crime.
Prisoner of War. POWs are allowed to be held until the end of the conflict; or the end of the prisoner's ability to participate in said war*.
Now, the way they're being held violates rules for holding a POW, but that's a different matter. Many have also been accused of being unlawful combatants, which alters the situation somewhat. Personally, I think that the administration has a point about many held there. Still, I would at least allow them the standard 'You're allowed to write letters home, we'll even arrange for delivery, but we're allowed to read all your mail**'.
*IE disabled grunts can be sent home.
**For things like military secrets.
I don't go there. I did have a short coversation with the local mall when they slapped up generic signs listing mall rules, which included saying 'no weapons allowed'. I pointed out that criminals wouldn't obey the signs; CCW holders and police are not the problem - and the police carried anyways. I also pointed out that by denying me the right to carry my weapon that they may assume a legal responsability for my safety - if I or somebody under my care are harmed in a situation I might have prevented with my gun, it's their fault for not making up the security lost. They redid the signs, I'm not sure that it was because of me though. Did it for the local cell phone shop as well. Again, I think that that particular sign was a national generic, issued to all stores.
Besides, state law gives those signs no legal merit*, but if they feel the necessity I simply won't give them my business.
I HATE leaving a firearm 'in the car'. Cars get broken into and things stolen. While it hasn't happened to my car... If I have to visit the courthouse I generally leave it at home. I just wish we were like some of the other states where they're required to have secured lockers at the entrance for legal but prohibited items while I'm there.
*Worst case is they can tell me to leave and charge me with tresspassing if I don't. I'm not stupid, they tell me to leave I'm leaving.
While I have been indeed fortunate to have never been involved in a serious attack; or even a truly serious natural disaster, I have read accounts of many who have.
While our government does great things to protect the average person; it does fail occasionally. In my belief, a person is his or her own first and last line of defense. First because you're always around, not anybody else*. Last because, well, if everybody else fails, it's you who has the last chance to avoid suffering the consequences.
For example; in 99% of sitations, I feel that the average competant adult or family should be able to survive on their own for at least a week without the basic services. Maybe not comfortably, but survive in such a way that they don't require a hospital visit. At worst; a few gallons of clean water will enable this. A week of fasting for a halfway healthy adult won't lead to anything permanent. Add a dozen cans of non-perishable food and you're eating well. Up north a heating supply that isn't dependant upon electricity; even if it's only going to heat a single room. Heck, pile three or four families into a single home and you'll find that the heating demand for that house drops sharply.
For crime; I feel that we should take a stance of fighting it whenever possible. Yes, even to the point of risking more injury to ourselves. The end result is to make sure that crime doesn't pay. It's like the lawsuit craze; stores settled cases because settling was cheaper. Yet it was like the old paying of danegeld. It only encouraged the criminals/danes to return and do it again. The mugger depends on the average roll to give up his or her money without a fight. If every one of them fights back his job is rendered impossible.
*Unless you're somebody special like the president, or rich enough to hire your own bodyguards.
Crazy fact about the actual wild, wild west: It had a lower murder and violent crime rate than the cities back east.
It was considered wild in the true sense of the world: Untamed by (European) humans.
Please remember that the polite part comes with time and respect for life. Unfortuantly Gang-banger society hasn't developed the polite part yet; many of them have no respect for their own lives, that or they attack during what their perceive as moments of weakness in their enemies.
Societies where the bearing of arms was so routine as to be expected were generally quite polite.
Just look at Europe: they are stopped in so an early stage they don't even think on taking a gun to go killing children. *That* is effectiveness you crazy american society.
Umm... I spent two years in Germany. They just so happened to coincide with this incident.
It happens everywhere.
I'd also be careful of the definition of 'child'. Also, I'd be concerned about the causes. For example, over half those deaths are suicides, yet Japan manages to have a suicide rate significantly higher than the USA, even without firearms.
The USA has always had a higher murder rate; and it's at it's highest in the areas where firearms are most restricted.
Personally, I tend to blame the drug war and welfare society we've bred in the inner cities.
I also carry around a larger than average first aid kit* in my car, know first aid, including how to use a tournequet and my CPR training is up to date. I know the operation of an AED**. Carry around a cell phone? Occasionally, though I don't give out the number to many people.
*It goes way beyond bandaids
**AED: Automatic External defibrillator
Semi-automatic. And the odds are that some or most of those rushing are going to die. Still, at that point he'd probably have less than 10 rounds per gun, and firing two handed doesn't really work. Figure three-four shots per guy, he's out of ammo at three, allowing the other three to get him. End result; death toll at 10 or so, not 32(and counting?).
Maybe because even there it's not an easy thing to do. Ever faced down a man with a loaded weapon who's demonstrated he's quite competent with it and is using it effectively? Think five young people armed with iPods are going to "rush" such a guy?
Of course it's not an easy thing to do. Fact is, it's pretty much suicidal. But it would have saved more people. That's why the military awards medals for it. Hard to get medals.
And the only reason I suggest it was that they had already been disarmed by society in general and the school specifically. Even then, they'd probably been conditioned by previous training not to resist, in the hopes that it'd improve their chances of survival. In this case it didn't work. In most cases, actually, it doesn't work.
Depends upon the type of gun owner. There's the hunter type; who only owns shotguns and rifles. Then there's the CCW permit holder, who generally owns several handguns.
Carrying one without a holster is stupid. You're practically asking for it to fall out or get caught and shoot you. I carry pretty much everywhere it's legal for me to do so.
And no, I've never been a cop.
If nothing else; a bum rush with six or so students from close range should have resulted in fewer bodies; even if those rushing are statistically liklier to die. For the number of shots fired; the guy had to have reloaded.
It's the sort of thing the military gives medals out for.
Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns").
Actually, as others have stated, they are.
For example, even with a Virginia CCW license it's still illegal to carry a firearm in Virginia Tech, the area where this shooting occured.
There was a proposal to allow CCW holders to carry there, but it died in committee, and the schools public affairs guy made statements to the effect of 'allowing people to feel safe here'. Note the usage of the word 'feel' - Ie not actually safe, as it turned out.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the US occur in prohibited areas. I wonder why?
If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead. If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.
32 Dead and 15 wounded generally means at least 37 rounds fired, assuming that every round hit. The generaly capacity of a handgun is 6-16 rounds without reloading. The average criminal shooting is 3 rounds, still this isn't average.
In such a gunfight, we'd generally see a maximum of 32 rounds fired. That puts us at the same amount of dead as happened here, if every bullet killed somebody, which the odds are drastically against. Even in a crowded mall, there's generally more than 50% open area vs area with people. If nothing else, accidental hits are generally going to be less lethal than aimed fire at a head or chest. Think of it as the difference between a target gallery and a firefight; In the target gallery you can calmly aim each shot; resulting in a far higher hit ratio. In the other you fire faster hoping for a lucky hit before the other guy can shoot you.
Besides, that's a worst case scenario. Best case? The crooks a bad shot and doesn't manage to get any lethal shots before a CCW holder or police officer kills or disables him with one shot.
Possible scenarios:
Bad guy goes in shooting; no CCW or police present; Result: massive casualties(see today, columbine)
Bad guy goes in shooting; kills CCW holder before he can draw his weapon; Result: Same difference.
Bad guy goes in shooting; neglected CCW holder draws and fires; capping BG from behind; Result: Body count drastically lower
Bad guy goes in shooting; sees CCW holder draw; gunfight ensues; Worst case: Some people hit in crossfire; CCW holder goes down filled with holes. Moderate case: CCW holder delays gunman, forces him to expend entire magazine on him* in rapid fire, allowing more civilians to flee and time for the police to show up. Good Case: CCW holder fills gunman full of holes from his magazine; gunman drops, unable to continue slaughter.
*happened in texas.
The problem with Col. Cooper's statement is that killing people is seen as a bad thing, and is something that should be avoided. That is why soldiers and/or cops have to be authorized to use lethal force. A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.
That's were you don't get Cooper's belief system. He was a military man. Killing, as seen by him, is not necessarily an evil thing. There are even circumstances where it is the right thing to do. In the case of men with rifles conducting corrections; it's seen as a good thing, because the evil ones are otherwise uncorrectable.
As for your assertion that gun-free zones are in effect "unarmed victim zones," think about the fact that in our legal system there is a difference between manslaughter and murder; in order for murder to be committed, malice and forethought must be proved. If you piss someone with a gun off, they could very easily kill you, even if they weren't justified in their action. Without guns, it is a whole lot harder, involved, and personal to kill someone, and that means that fewer people will die.
CCW permit holders beat even police officers for violent crime rates. The gun is unique in that it allows an 80 year old grandmother the same chance to beat her attacker as a 300 pound professional linebacker.
Our point is that once somebody passes the line where they're willing to kill; no other laws will stop them. And despite what you say; people with CCW permits don't just generally go off killing people who piss them off. We're well aware of the consequences. To the point that a CCW holder getting into trouble is state/national news.
In my case the gun is either on me or in a special safe with an electronic lock that takes about three seconds to open; loaded w/round in chamber. It's against the rules of safety many nanny-types want (locked up with ammunition seperate), but it's secure enough for me. Too many wrong codes and the safe locks up for a half hour, as well as alerting me when I go to open it that bad codes have been entered.
This really has me ticked off. My main thought is 'couldn't somebody have stopped him?
I also get the LOAC briefing every year, and when they bother to mention the M2, it's been to specifically state that it's allowable for anti-personnel use.
I have also gone over the text of the Geneva conventions; and there are no mentions of caliber restrictions. Besides; even if there were, wouldn't they be more likely to be measured in mm, the Global/European method, rather than the US caliber system?
Bull. You can easily rip a persons foot off with a single 7.62mm shot. There's no way you can do that with a 9mm round fired from an mp5.
True, but a gut shot will have the 7.62 pass right through, while the 9mm punches a bigger hole. Generally people in combat aren't aiming at the feet. Then there's also the issue that you're much more likely to be shot by only 1 7.62 vs half a dozen 9mm.
Of course, there's the whole 'steel jacketed' issue. Most bullets are copper jacketed. Military rounds often have a steel core, but that's the opposite of a jacket.
You are with the right rules lawyer and the correct circumstances...
.50BMG may be deployed for penetrating cover and destroying equipment such as vehicles; but it's still a machine gun and legal to use against enemy combatants, especially if it's what the troops have available.
The best I can think of is a target that you have open, twisty holes to, but are protected from most HE effects to to depth underground, but the area involved is not conductive to bunker-busters (IE a cave network).
Still in most of those circumstances thermobaric rounds are used today. It's quicker, though I understand the main cause of death is asphixiation.
If a weapon is the most effective at the situation you've got; or even the average most effective at a number of ranges; it's pretty much allowed. If a weapon is nastier but not actually more effective; then you have a case under the suffering clause.
The M2
Sheesh...
.50 caliber IS, by US law, considered the difference between rifle cartridges and artillery type stuff, for the most part. .50BMG is a rifle round. .54BMG would be in a different category. Now, there is a sporting purposes clause, meant to cover things like 12 Gauge shotguns (.73 cal), and large bore hunting rifles like the .700 AE(meant for hunting large game like rhinos and elephants), etc...
.50 were illegal, than what the heck are we doing running around with 30mm grenades, tank guns, and all that?
The Geneva conventions take NO stance on the 12.5mm/50cal ammuntion and it's usage on humans. For that matter, shotguns loaded with slugs are larger in diameter. The whole 'aiming at equipment, such as a belt buckle', is most likely the result of somebody classifying the M2 as a 'anti-equipment' weapon, and the resulting stupidity of logic to make the system usefull against charging troops again.
Now,
If the
The Geneva conventions only restrict weapons that cause unnecessary harm and suffering. Stuff like glass rounds, which aren't more effective in removing the combat capability of a soldier, but makes treatment of his wounds(assuming he survives), a huge difficulty.
Expanding bullets(hollowpoints) are a big question mark. They're more effective at enacting a 'stop' on an unarmored target than FMJ for their caliber, but to do it they trade off penetration ability. The Hague conventions(US didn't sign), banned them, but they're the standard load for police and self-defense today, so the argument that they cause unnecessary suffering is shaky.
The 'certification' of HP, match grade bullets for sniping went like this: 1. The HP bullet is the most accurate bullet we've found, out of several dozen possible candidates, both HP and non-HP 2. Wound characteristics between the non-expanding HP and non HP versions were essentially the same. Therefore it's approved. I'd argue that even if it's more wounding(IE more likely to quickly kill the target), it'd still fit within the definitions. Take 9mm FMJ and 9mm HP. 9mm FMJ has something like an 80% stop rate* with a single chest hit, 9mm HP is around the 90% rate. It's outright more effective. Survival is slightly less for the HP rounds, but disability is about the same. Something nasty like a glass bullet would be more expensive, have a lower stop rate; yet a higher death and disability rate. Result: Unnecessary suffering, banned.
*rate at which the one hit is no longer able to pursue agressive actions within moments of being shot.
I'd say that they were developed for people without the use of a limb, for whatever reason. Helping those from would be a reason presented to the DoD/congress to get some money from them.
Overall, I'd love to learn Dvorak, but since I'm a QWERTY touch typist and work support(IE I'm frequently on other people's machines), I don't want to have to switch back and forth.
We aren't. It's required for feeding the yeast for rising.
Now, as to why they use HFCS instead of sugar...
Cost. Due to import tariffs sugar is more expensive than HFCS.
I'm trying to fight the tendency by switching to brands that use actual sugar. I find that they tend to taste better. It's sometimes difficult because I'm not concerned about the 'organic' label, but that's frequently the only option without HFCS, and it's 3X as expensive.
That would be nice. Nuclear plants have historically averaged only 80% up time - in fact in the 1980s is was 65%.
They pretty much are - From the article:
To put it another way, the US increase from 65% load factor in 1980s to 90% today is equivalent to adding 23,000 MWe capacity.
Oh, and on the other side; decentralization vs. centralization:
computers won decentralized; but their manufacture is very much centralized at a few large plants.
Please note that I don't disagree that decentralized power has a place in our overall solution. I just think that nuclear plants remain a strong possible solution to certain aspects of our power demand, providing the electricity needed to run factories and cities. Heck, coolocate the plant in the city to give them waste heat. Use some of the newer designs and waste heat to generate hydrogen or desalinate water.