Not that there's anything wrong with the Army keeping with the times in its recruitment methods, IMO, but this seeems like a bit of a reach. Still, you have to admire the audacity of the developers of this taxpayer-funded game in getting the right people convinced to pay them to do this.
Compared to the expense that the US military spends on recruitment otherwise, a game is cheap.
mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed.
They waited until you were 16? I was watching renting R rated movies at 12, if not earlier.
The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.
I'm reminded of the old tale of the parents who totally sheltered their child until he was an adult. He took one step into the real world and croaked from shock.
Shelter and Protect, yes. But not keep ignorant of the ways of the world. Violence and sex is part of the real world. Isolating a child excessivly from these forces only leaves them without control mechanisms when they finally enter the real world.
This might be a spot where we just have to agree to disagree. I think that what you say certainly applies in some places, but I think that much like two places like (semi-random choices, one big and one small) NYC and Omaha probably have different zoning laws maybe different emissions standards and building codes, all of which make sense to have different in those places, so too should they have different gun control laws.
I've lived in Nebraska. Omaha likes to try to act like NYC.
If a majority of law abiding citizens are disinclined towards owning firearms to begin with, then it makes more sense to restrict them. In a place where this is not true, it makes less sense.
But my whole point is that criminals will always be able to bypass or ignore restrictions. Like I said, I can build a machine gun for less than $100 parts. Bombs are even cheaper and easier. So you shouldn't restrict firearms. I'd encourage safety/usage training, but some places have literally made the training for civilians tougher than that of the police, so you have to be careful about required training.
The problem with may-issue permits is you get sheriffs/approving officials who rubberstamp 'deny' unless the person in question supports their re-elections or somesuch. Sometimes they're just nutty, like the judge who approved the restraining order against Letterman from a woman who claimed he was using code words on his show to propose to her. I tend to not be too concerned with background checks, after all, I hold a current top secret security clearance. I laugh at NICS checks, even my CCW investigation.
I would not use it, nor would I recommend those I give a damn for use it. AMD absolutely nailed the legacy support, making 32-bit OS's run on a 64-bit platform.
Agreed. I have several 64bit computers. I looked into 64bit windows, saw the issues they were having and said 'I'm not even going to try'.
The other question I thought of was 'why do you need 64bit drivers for things like sound cards and hard drives?'. The most essential need for 64bit drivers would be for the motherboard, specifically the memory controller system.
Support I can see. Advanced features I can see. Heck, even 64bit programs that state 'You need a 64bit video driver for full use of this program'. But by supporting 32bit as fully as possible, you ease the transition, get a larger installed userbase, which encourages people to write 64bit drivers.
Then again, I view window's current 64bit version as not even a beta. They release an incomplete product, listen to the complaints, and make the next one better.
The sale of the drug 'enriches' such people as the lab technicians preparing the chemical precursers, the janitors who keep the place clean, the workers who built the factory, the scientist who developed it. It even helps the people who risked and did without the immediate gratification of spending their money to invest in the company, allowing it to pay for the research and infrastructure.
By the same token, it 'enriches' the people who get the drug, as they have a life that they otherwise would not have.
Some hospitals are setting up 'luxury suites'. Visiters pay out of pocket to get these nice suits, which are hospital room with 5 star hotel accomodations. Priority access to services. At the same time, the hospital charges an arm and a leg for these rooms, allowing them to pay for equipment and services that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. Something like another MRI, inhouse labatory, stuff like that.
We're talking about countries that often can't afford to provide clean water to everyone. The equivalent to a high school education. Paved streets. Much less drugs that are still expensive even at unit cost. Try taking the budget for an average city in the USA, then say that's the new state budget. It gets ugly.
That's not even figuring in the problems many have with corrupt leaders socking away millions into offshore bank accounts and french villas.
I've read some fairly reliable reports that show, at least in certain areas of africa, unsanitary vaccination methods may be a large factor in AIDS transmission.
Still, there's a whole raft of STD's to be avoided. And in a fair number of them, condoms aren't protection.
Agreed. If only we could isolate everyone for ~6 months, then tatoo everyone's status on their forhead or something. Or send people with permanent infectious diseases to a sort of leper colony.
Now, I've seen a number of power supplies, for both personal and business use. I have NEVER seen one without a load of listings, including UL.
Even the most nasty power supplies I've seen are UL listed. The sheer amount of liability one would assume selling non-UL equipment ensures this.
Of course, I'll dispute with you on how important UL listing is for a review. 1. Why list it if everything you review is UL listed? 2. UL listing merely means that it's gone through testing to pretty much insure that if it fails it doesn't cause a serious safety hazard by doing things like electrifying it's case, blowing up, spewing glass shards everywhere, catching fire, etc. It's not a statement of quality or performance.
Inefficient, compared to what?
on
A Kilowatt of Power
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The question is, compared to what? 75% efficient is great if the alternative is only 50%, which is what linear power supplies average. Linear supplies are simpler, but also bigger and heavier. The sheer mass of metal required can quickly make the simplicity moot, as the cost of the metal drives the price high.
Driving the frequency even higher can increase efficiency, but I believe it increases engineering complexities and strain on the components.
Like what others have said, switching power supplies only draw what power they need, plus a certain amount for inefficiency. This might actually end up being more efficient than some cheap knockoff power supplies. Should last longer, as well.
As for heating, the only way drawing that much power wouldn't hurt your bottom line is if you're heating by direct electric. Last I checked, gas and oil are still cheaper per therm. A heat pump system sorta breaks the 100% efficiency thing by bringing in heat from outside.
Sure, it'll be reliable right up to the point that the USA decides that it needs to jam or shoot down the satellites. Or the operators decide that in the interests of keeping the system more operational, degrades it at the US's 'suggestion'.
The problem is that at one point there may be a "protein envelope" that the immune system cannot match up to, in which case resistance is not just futile - its impossible. Think of a new flu that the body can't manufacture a "key" to fit into the protein coat of the virus - a vaccine won't help.
And this hasn't shown up in the billions of years viruses have been around? The reverse could be true as well. A cell wall with no protein 'ports' for a virus to latch on to.
Realistically speaking, a virus has to have a protein coat, has to have a method of attaching to the very cells that it has evolved to attack. This leaves it vulnerable.
As for the immune system being unable to match up, well, the owning organism dies in that instance.
This one's a bit tough. Colin Ferguson carried a handgun onto an LIRR train and shot 7 (citing from memory, but the number isn't that important) passengers with no provocation. He bought the gun in California, which had among other things a 7 day waiting period at the time.
I checked his record, it seems that he was arrested for harrasing a woman on the subway almost 2 years before the shootings. No mention of a conviction. My research showed that he waited the fifteen day waiting period. Which didn't do much considering he kept hold of the gun for 8 months before using it.
It might seem cruel, but I don't believe that we can end all tragedy. As I firmly believe that the majority of people are good, I feel that the best method to prevent these tragedies is a strategy of equal force. Thus, if everybody can project more or less equal amounts of force, the sheer number of 'good guys' will handily suppress the number of 'bad guys'. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons. I can build a machine gun for under $100 parts, failing that, knives and clubs have been used extensivly, and in some ways are worse than guns as they aren't noisy. I follow the idea that if one or two people had had a weapon on the subway, that he could have been stopped. Hopefully before he killed anybody, but almost certainly before killing six. He even reloaded twice before finally being taken down by other passangers when he attempted to reload a third time.
I don't remember anymore what kind of background checks that he went through, but even then you can't really prove that you're a good guy.
Probably very little. NICS didn't come into existance until 1998, the gun was purchased in 1993. The gun was purchased in California while any disqualifying records would have been in New York. State collaberation of records was spotty back then. It's interesting he used California, whole regions closer than that would have sold him a firearm even easier.
*no big deal in the sense that one armed madman can't hold the crowd hostage. It's always a big deal if a loon starts shooting at people.
Agreed. This statement made me grin because it's so true. One aspect I hold to is the difference between a spree killing and a firefight. If a trained individual went spree killing* he or she would likely be able to obtain a fatality every 2-3 shots. It's a target shoot. He wouldn't care about cover, evasion, etc. The moment somebody else shows up to offer armed resistance, well, it's now a firefight. Whole magazines are emptied for 1-2 'kills'. Cover and evasion is necessary. Adrenaline messes up aim, etc.
My other comment should have read "becomes tyranical" but it looks like you knew what I meant.
It happens to me as well, given the way I edit posts.
In english "dependent" might be a better translation then. "Addicted" generally has negative connotations in that you're making(or willing to make) sacrifices that lead to a negative effect on your life because of the object or behavior in question.
Because of the drug war, the meaning of "addiction" has been distorted. A person can be dependant on pain killers because of injury, for example. Without them his ability to function is adversly impaired. An addict would be one that doesn't have a condition requiring regular dosage, who is willing to risk things like their job, career, health, life, family, or freedom for that next dose. Then there's always the question of who determines what's 'harmful', what's taking a 'risk'.
We're "dependent" on technology. If we lost access to it our lives would be very much for the worse. We're not addicted in the sense that we'd violently protest it's removal. Heck, we'd give it up in a moment for something better.
Non military human firearm deaths from other types of guns are pretty much negligble from what I understand. Drive by shootings with a rifle are kind of impractical.
Actually, criminal usage of military firearms is negligble in the USA as well, even if you include 'military pattern' copycats.
Hmm... Permits. Do you feel that they should be 'shall issue', in that the approving official must issue a permit unless a disabling condition is found, or should they be discretionary, as in the approving official can effectivly say 'no' without needing a real reason?
What do you consider reasonable criteria for 'usage and training'? You see, I've seen somebody suggest 2 semesters of training for a CCW permit. On the other hand, most initial police officer firearm training is only 2 days, including firing, and the moment they're done they can carry concealed at any time. It's why if you're going to have training, you have to cap it at some reasonable level, to prevent things like poll tests. Something like NRA safety class level, though that's geared for hunting and not self defense. In my opinion it involves way too much handling of the weapon, unloading and reloading at various points. Unloading/Loading are the two biggest points in gun handling where accidental or negligent* discharges occur. Anyways, I'd rather avoid the whole permit for ownership thing and simply have the training be part of the school course. That way people are covered even if they find a gun dumped in their backyard or something.
As for the waiting period, would you consider emergency exceptions in case of clear and present danger? I've read stories of at least seven women killed while in the waiting period for a firearm by former boyfriends/husbands that they have restraining orders against. Having a waiting period for me is a bit silly as I already have a choice between four handguns and seven rifles. Some people also have to drive long distances to get to the gun store, it's not exactly fair to them. How about allowing shipping of the firearm to the customer after the waiting period?
I have one for CCW, which also exempts me from the NICS check. It involved a bit of training, a test(written and course of fire), and a deeper background check. I think it's silly to ban my carrying from various places. I've already shown myself to be a good guy. I'm not going to be shooting up a school, but I have a better chance of stopping one if I have my firearm with me while there.
On the flip side, my major objection to gun control is with what I perceive to be the intent of the 2nd amendment, which to me means "If the government because tyrannical, the people need the means to conduct a revolution."
Bingo! Congratulations, you get it.:)
*Accidental = Mechanical failure, Negligent = Human failure. Most discharges end up being Negligent. Guns don't break often.
Most don't have any sort of notice of additional terms on the box. As for canceling the contract, most say 'return to store for a refund'. At the same time the store receipt says 'opened software only exchangable for same title'.
Would you hold the EULA as valid in that case?
"Your honor, I disagreed with the terms of the EULA, but when I attempted to follow the recourse listed in it(returning it to the store), I was declined a refund."
Sorry, no link for Lott's study. I have the dead tree edition. Though it looks like you can get some excerpts from here
I'd argue that if you have an honest, competent police force that they won't feel threatened by law-abiding citizen's ownership of guns. Indeed, it's even a force to help keep them honest. Indeed, many gun control laws were passed to attempt to deny blacks firearms to be able to defend themselves from the various KKK type groups dedicated to 'keeping them in their places'.
I'll say again: What do you consider 'reasonable' gun laws?
I'd love to see a genuinely objective study on it. I would too, but I'd be wary, seeing as how the CDC did a study on it, and their results were 'inconclusive'. Of course, other actions by the CDC has shown itself to be biased against firearms.
John Lott did a study on CCW, though alot of people are trashing him over it. I haven't heard of an objective study or validation/invalidation of his work though. General thought among anti-gun control people is that they tried to find problems in his work, but were unable, so have fallen back on attacking his character. He found that liberalizing(making easier) self defense tends to drop crime rates. It tends to be modest gains, however, because few people take advantage of CCW laws, and those that do tend to be non-victims to begin with. It seems that the most frequent victims of violence are other criminals.
By the way, what's your idea of 'effective gun control'? I'll admit that I tend towards the tounge in cheek 'using both hands' statement. I don't object to the NICS check, I'd love to see gun safety taught in schools, and severe penalties for the usage of a weapon(not necessarily a gun) in commision of a crime. I can even see somebody being charged with 'negligent storage' if a child gets ahold of a gun and hurts somebody with it.
Since so much crime is done by repeat offenders, longer terms for violent offenders. I couldn't care less about non-violent drug offenses.
But, back to the whole surveilance thing, I've read about all sorts of incidents in England where they catch the crime on four seperate monitors, and still don't catch the criminal. In many ways you're safer in New York City than many parts of England.
Like the previous poster implied, it's a preponderance of the evidence thing. The fact that you put money down before ever seeing the EULA tends to make judges not like it. The fact that 80-90% of stores have a no refund policy on opened software makes the judges not like it even more.
It's the equivalent of making that 'super-fine print' illegal. The EULA isn't presented until the financial transaction has been completed. Therefore, it's null and void. The user has the right to use the software, having paid his money at the store for it. The software company isn't allowed to change the deal after the fact.
The ban went into effect in 1976. It dropped from 1,774.3 to 1,481.3 that year, but was a record high of 2,010.6 by 1980.
As for not listing alaska, well, alaska just removed the requirement for a permit, so year 2000 statistics wouldn't matter.
And while Texas is the leader on guns in the public mind, they're actually tougher than Florida, which is 812. On the other hand, New York has worked hard to reduce crime, having peaked around 1990.
There are many factors for crime, including amount of police, economic success(or failure), diversity, etc.
Googling says it was a Weatherby Mk 5 and that he's considering melting it down. To which my thought is Nooo!!!! Weatherbys are nice guns, they're definitly not saturday night specials, and they produce solely hunting type rifles. Of coure, in order to get the gun he had to deposit $5,000 into a CD and pass the NICS check. Not many criminals can do that.
I guess I was remembering another bank that was giving away shotguns with accounts...
Slashdot Mirror
Not that there's anything wrong with the Army keeping with the times in its recruitment methods, IMO, but this seeems like a bit of a reach. Still, you have to admire the audacity of the developers of this taxpayer-funded game in getting the right people convinced to pay them to do this.
Compared to the expense that the US military spends on recruitment otherwise, a game is cheap.
It was an experiment.
mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed.
They waited until you were 16? I was watching renting R rated movies at 12, if not earlier.
The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.
I'm reminded of the old tale of the parents who totally sheltered their child until he was an adult. He took one step into the real world and croaked from shock.
Shelter and Protect, yes. But not keep ignorant of the ways of the world. Violence and sex is part of the real world. Isolating a child excessivly from these forces only leaves them without control mechanisms when they finally enter the real world.
This might be a spot where we just have to agree to disagree. I think that what you say certainly applies in some places, but I think that much like two places like (semi-random choices, one big and one small) NYC and Omaha probably have different zoning laws maybe different emissions standards and building codes, all of which make sense to have different in those places, so too should they have different gun control laws.
I've lived in Nebraska. Omaha likes to try to act like NYC.
If a majority of law abiding citizens are disinclined towards owning firearms to begin with, then it makes more sense to restrict them. In a place where this is not true, it makes less sense.
But my whole point is that criminals will always be able to bypass or ignore restrictions. Like I said, I can build a machine gun for less than $100 parts. Bombs are even cheaper and easier. So you shouldn't restrict firearms. I'd encourage safety/usage training, but some places have literally made the training for civilians tougher than that of the police, so you have to be careful about required training.
The problem with may-issue permits is you get sheriffs/approving officials who rubberstamp 'deny' unless the person in question supports their re-elections or somesuch. Sometimes they're just nutty, like the judge who approved the restraining order against Letterman from a woman who claimed he was using code words on his show to propose to her. I tend to not be too concerned with background checks, after all, I hold a current top secret security clearance. I laugh at NICS checks, even my CCW investigation.
Oh, and happy new years.
I would not use it, nor would I recommend those I give a damn for use it. AMD absolutely nailed the legacy support, making 32-bit OS's run on a 64-bit platform.
Agreed. I have several 64bit computers. I looked into 64bit windows, saw the issues they were having and said 'I'm not even going to try'.
The other question I thought of was 'why do you need 64bit drivers for things like sound cards and hard drives?'. The most essential need for 64bit drivers would be for the motherboard, specifically the memory controller system.
Support I can see. Advanced features I can see. Heck, even 64bit programs that state 'You need a 64bit video driver for full use of this program'. But by supporting 32bit as fully as possible, you ease the transition, get a larger installed userbase, which encourages people to write 64bit drivers.
Then again, I view window's current 64bit version as not even a beta. They release an incomplete product, listen to the complaints, and make the next one better.
'enrich' can be taken to mean getting paid.
The sale of the drug 'enriches' such people as the lab technicians preparing the chemical precursers, the janitors who keep the place clean, the workers who built the factory, the scientist who developed it. It even helps the people who risked and did without the immediate gratification of spending their money to invest in the company, allowing it to pay for the research and infrastructure.
By the same token, it 'enriches' the people who get the drug, as they have a life that they otherwise would not have.
Some hospitals are setting up 'luxury suites'. Visiters pay out of pocket to get these nice suits, which are hospital room with 5 star hotel accomodations. Priority access to services. At the same time, the hospital charges an arm and a leg for these rooms, allowing them to pay for equipment and services that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. Something like another MRI, inhouse labatory, stuff like that.
Do you object to this?
Take an economics class.
We're talking about countries that often can't afford to provide clean water to everyone. The equivalent to a high school education. Paved streets. Much less drugs that are still expensive even at unit cost. Try taking the budget for an average city in the USA, then say that's the new state budget. It gets ugly.
That's not even figuring in the problems many have with corrupt leaders socking away millions into offshore bank accounts and french villas.
Done right, they could even write the difference between the US price and the African price off as charity.
I thought it was India trying to copycat drugs more than Africa.
I've read some fairly reliable reports that show, at least in certain areas of africa, unsanitary vaccination methods may be a large factor in AIDS transmission.
Still, there's a whole raft of STD's to be avoided. And in a fair number of them, condoms aren't protection.
Agreed. If only we could isolate everyone for ~6 months, then tatoo everyone's status on their forhead or something. Or send people with permanent infectious diseases to a sort of leper colony.
We'd get rid of alot of diseases that way.
Now, I've seen a number of power supplies, for both personal and business use. I have NEVER seen one without a load of listings, including UL.
Even the most nasty power supplies I've seen are UL listed. The sheer amount of liability one would assume selling non-UL equipment ensures this.
Of course, I'll dispute with you on how important UL listing is for a review.
1. Why list it if everything you review is UL listed?
2. UL listing merely means that it's gone through testing to pretty much insure that if it fails it doesn't cause a serious safety hazard by doing things like electrifying it's case, blowing up, spewing glass shards everywhere, catching fire, etc. It's not a statement of quality or performance.
The question is, compared to what? 75% efficient is great if the alternative is only 50%, which is what linear power supplies average. Linear supplies are simpler, but also bigger and heavier. The sheer mass of metal required can quickly make the simplicity moot, as the cost of the metal drives the price high.
Driving the frequency even higher can increase efficiency, but I believe it increases engineering complexities and strain on the components.
Like what others have said, switching power supplies only draw what power they need, plus a certain amount for inefficiency. This might actually end up being more efficient than some cheap knockoff power supplies. Should last longer, as well.
As for heating, the only way drawing that much power wouldn't hurt your bottom line is if you're heating by direct electric. Last I checked, gas and oil are still cheaper per therm. A heat pump system sorta breaks the 100% efficiency thing by bringing in heat from outside.
And I still see VHS sold in stores. Not as many anymore, but you can still get pretty much every new video on it.
I think it would be hilarious if they end up without DRM at all. Probably sell better as well.
Sure, it'll be reliable right up to the point that the USA decides that it needs to jam or shoot down the satellites. Or the operators decide that in the interests of keeping the system more operational, degrades it at the US's 'suggestion'.
The problem is that at one point there may be a "protein envelope" that the immune system cannot match up to, in which case resistance is not just futile - its impossible. Think of a new flu that the body can't manufacture a "key" to fit into the protein coat of the virus - a vaccine won't help.
And this hasn't shown up in the billions of years viruses have been around? The reverse could be true as well. A cell wall with no protein 'ports' for a virus to latch on to.
Realistically speaking, a virus has to have a protein coat, has to have a method of attaching to the very cells that it has evolved to attack. This leaves it vulnerable.
As for the immune system being unable to match up, well, the owning organism dies in that instance.
This one's a bit tough. Colin Ferguson carried a handgun onto an LIRR train and shot 7 (citing from memory, but the number isn't that important) passengers with no provocation. He bought the gun in California, which had among other things a 7 day waiting period at the time.
I checked his record, it seems that he was arrested for harrasing a woman on the subway almost 2 years before the shootings. No mention of a conviction. My research showed that he waited the fifteen day waiting period. Which didn't do much considering he kept hold of the gun for 8 months before using it.
It might seem cruel, but I don't believe that we can end all tragedy. As I firmly believe that the majority of people are good, I feel that the best method to prevent these tragedies is a strategy of equal force. Thus, if everybody can project more or less equal amounts of force, the sheer number of 'good guys' will handily suppress the number of 'bad guys'. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons. I can build a machine gun for under $100 parts, failing that, knives and clubs have been used extensivly, and in some ways are worse than guns as they aren't noisy. I follow the idea that if one or two people had had a weapon on the subway, that he could have been stopped. Hopefully before he killed anybody, but almost certainly before killing six. He even reloaded twice before finally being taken down by other passangers when he attempted to reload a third time.
I don't remember anymore what kind of background checks that he went through, but even then you can't really prove that you're a good guy.
Probably very little. NICS didn't come into existance until 1998, the gun was purchased in 1993. The gun was purchased in California while any disqualifying records would have been in New York. State collaberation of records was spotty back then. It's interesting he used California, whole regions closer than that would have sold him a firearm even easier.
*no big deal in the sense that one armed madman can't hold the crowd hostage. It's always a big deal if a loon starts shooting at people.
Agreed. This statement made me grin because it's so true. One aspect I hold to is the difference between a spree killing and a firefight. If a trained individual went spree killing* he or she would likely be able to obtain a fatality every 2-3 shots. It's a target shoot. He wouldn't care about cover, evasion, etc. The moment somebody else shows up to offer armed resistance, well, it's now a firefight. Whole magazines are emptied for 1-2 'kills'. Cover and evasion is necessary. Adrenaline messes up aim, etc.
My other comment should have read "becomes tyranical" but it looks like you knew what I meant.
It happens to me as well, given the way I edit posts.
And that's why they used that word...
It's like that Ironic song when none of the examples are ironic.
In english "dependent" might be a better translation then. "Addicted" generally has negative connotations in that you're making(or willing to make) sacrifices that lead to a negative effect on your life because of the object or behavior in question.
Because of the drug war, the meaning of "addiction" has been distorted. A person can be dependant on pain killers because of injury, for example. Without them his ability to function is adversly impaired. An addict would be one that doesn't have a condition requiring regular dosage, who is willing to risk things like their job, career, health, life, family, or freedom for that next dose. Then there's always the question of who determines what's 'harmful', what's taking a 'risk'.
We're "dependent" on technology. If we lost access to it our lives would be very much for the worse. We're not addicted in the sense that we'd violently protest it's removal. Heck, we'd give it up in a moment for something better.
Non military human firearm deaths from other types of guns are pretty much negligble from what I understand. Drive by shootings with a rifle are kind of impractical.
:)
Actually, criminal usage of military firearms is negligble in the USA as well, even if you include 'military pattern' copycats.
Hmm... Permits. Do you feel that they should be 'shall issue', in that the approving official must issue a permit unless a disabling condition is found, or should they be discretionary, as in the approving official can effectivly say 'no' without needing a real reason?
What do you consider reasonable criteria for 'usage and training'? You see, I've seen somebody suggest 2 semesters of training for a CCW permit. On the other hand, most initial police officer firearm training is only 2 days, including firing, and the moment they're done they can carry concealed at any time. It's why if you're going to have training, you have to cap it at some reasonable level, to prevent things like poll tests. Something like NRA safety class level, though that's geared for hunting and not self defense. In my opinion it involves way too much handling of the weapon, unloading and reloading at various points. Unloading/Loading are the two biggest points in gun handling where accidental or negligent* discharges occur. Anyways, I'd rather avoid the whole permit for ownership thing and simply have the training be part of the school course. That way people are covered even if they find a gun dumped in their backyard or something.
As for the waiting period, would you consider emergency exceptions in case of clear and present danger? I've read stories of at least seven women killed while in the waiting period for a firearm by former boyfriends/husbands that they have restraining orders against. Having a waiting period for me is a bit silly as I already have a choice between four handguns and seven rifles. Some people also have to drive long distances to get to the gun store, it's not exactly fair to them. How about allowing shipping of the firearm to the customer after the waiting period?
I have one for CCW, which also exempts me from the NICS check. It involved a bit of training, a test(written and course of fire), and a deeper background check. I think it's silly to ban my carrying from various places. I've already shown myself to be a good guy. I'm not going to be shooting up a school, but I have a better chance of stopping one if I have my firearm with me while there.
On the flip side, my major objection to gun control is with what I perceive to be the intent of the 2nd amendment, which to me means "If the government because tyrannical, the people need the means to conduct a revolution."
Bingo! Congratulations, you get it.
*Accidental = Mechanical failure, Negligent = Human failure. Most discharges end up being Negligent. Guns don't break often.
Most don't have any sort of notice of additional terms on the box. As for canceling the contract, most say 'return to store for a refund'. At the same time the store receipt says 'opened software only exchangable for same title'.
Would you hold the EULA as valid in that case?
"Your honor, I disagreed with the terms of the EULA, but when I attempted to follow the recourse listed in it(returning it to the store), I was declined a refund."
Sorry, no link for Lott's study. I have the dead tree edition. Though it looks like you can get some excerpts from here
I'd argue that if you have an honest, competent police force that they won't feel threatened by law-abiding citizen's ownership of guns. Indeed, it's even a force to help keep them honest. Indeed, many gun control laws were passed to attempt to deny blacks firearms to be able to defend themselves from the various KKK type groups dedicated to 'keeping them in their places'.
I'll say again: What do you consider 'reasonable' gun laws?
Oh, I'll agree that it's a contract. It's just a 'null and void' contract, not worth the electrons it's displayed with.
Heck, I consider it a type of contract when you order that meal at a fast food joint.
I'd love to see a genuinely objective study on it.
I would too, but I'd be wary, seeing as how the CDC did a study on it, and their results were 'inconclusive'. Of course, other actions by the CDC has shown itself to be biased against firearms.
John Lott did a study on CCW, though alot of people are trashing him over it. I haven't heard of an objective study or validation/invalidation of his work though. General thought among anti-gun control people is that they tried to find problems in his work, but were unable, so have fallen back on attacking his character. He found that liberalizing(making easier) self defense tends to drop crime rates. It tends to be modest gains, however, because few people take advantage of CCW laws, and those that do tend to be non-victims to begin with. It seems that the most frequent victims of violence are other criminals.
By the way, what's your idea of 'effective gun control'? I'll admit that I tend towards the tounge in cheek 'using both hands' statement. I don't object to the NICS check, I'd love to see gun safety taught in schools, and severe penalties for the usage of a weapon(not necessarily a gun) in commision of a crime. I can even see somebody being charged with 'negligent storage' if a child gets ahold of a gun and hurts somebody with it.
Since so much crime is done by repeat offenders, longer terms for violent offenders. I couldn't care less about non-violent drug offenses.
But, back to the whole surveilance thing, I've read about all sorts of incidents in England where they catch the crime on four seperate monitors, and still don't catch the criminal. In many ways you're safer in New York City than many parts of England.
Like the previous poster implied, it's a preponderance of the evidence thing. The fact that you put money down before ever seeing the EULA tends to make judges not like it. The fact that 80-90% of stores have a no refund policy on opened software makes the judges not like it even more.
It's the equivalent of making that 'super-fine print' illegal. The EULA isn't presented until the financial transaction has been completed. Therefore, it's null and void. The user has the right to use the software, having paid his money at the store for it. The software company isn't allowed to change the deal after the fact.
The ban went into effect in 1976. It dropped from 1,774.3 to 1,481.3 that year, but was a record high of 2,010.6 by 1980.
As for not listing alaska, well, alaska just removed the requirement for a permit, so year 2000 statistics wouldn't matter.
And while Texas is the leader on guns in the public mind, they're actually tougher than Florida, which is 812. On the other hand, New York has worked hard to reduce crime, having peaked around 1990.
There are many factors for crime, including amount of police, economic success(or failure), diversity, etc.
Curse my memory...
Googling says it was a Weatherby Mk 5 and that he's considering melting it down. To which my thought is Nooo!!!! Weatherbys are nice guns, they're definitly not saturday night specials, and they produce solely hunting type rifles. Of coure, in order to get the gun he had to deposit $5,000 into a CD and pass the NICS check. Not many criminals can do that.
I guess I was remembering another bank that was giving away shotguns with accounts...