I would hook up an Arduino to this (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10747) and use it to control power on the internet router. It is not a physical disconnect, but it is probably the next best thing.
You can up the Arduino to listen via Ethernet, look for card swipes, check for physical presence, however you want to control it.
Vitamin C IVs are well known and used. The practical upper limit for oral vitamin C is somewhere around 10-15 grams for an average adult. Why? You get the shits like crazy. IV vitamin C is a little different, and you can actually administer much higher doses by bypassing the gut.
Wintemute's methods may be sound, but the hypotheses he chooses to research are unspeakably biased and designed to fit a pre-made bias. He is clearly not interested in studying the actual effects of firearms in the civilian population. He is interested in conducting research that demonizes firearms.
I'm well aware of the controversies surrounding John Lott. There are many other researchers who have conducted research regarding firearms, not funded by the CDC or the NRA. For example, this paper written by Don Gates and Gary Mauser is a much better example of unbiased research by authors working in their field (unlike Wintermute, who is not actually qualified to perform research in this field). http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
While I would tend to agree with you, the videos of these things disintegrating has me questioning this belief. While the pressures are high, and the failures catastrophic, they do not seem to pose an unreasonable risk to the user (especially if eye protection is worn as it should be)..380 Auto is not the same thing as.223 or.40 S&W. There simply isn't that much going on. If you built one of these for.40 S&W, I am pretty sure it would go off like a bomb in your hand. However, observed disintegration failures from.380 Auto seem to involve large chunks of plastic at fairly low velocity.
Regardless, this field is definitely in its infancy. Safety is sure to increase over time, especially as printing methodologies improve and gun designs become more optimized for printing in plastic.
The NRA lobbyists forbid government agencies from funding that research because the research was being carried out in order to fit premade hypotheses, not to actually prove or disprove hypotheses. What they were doing was not science, although it was certainly phrased to appear scientific.
I don't "believe in" peer-reviewed research. There are plenty of instances of researchers falsifying evidence, incorrectly conducting experiments, and outright lying. The peer review is not thorough enough to catch these errors. The anti-gun research carried out prior to the ban is definitely an example of this.
As a counterpoint to this, I would point out that the research that has been carried out apart from the government-funded work has generally pointed in a clear and consistent direction towards gun rights. If you read both sets of research, the government-funded research is full of holes, statistical errors, and obfuscations. The independent research is not. I have read both.
If you are actually interested in some point-by-point comparison, I can definitely go into them, but you'll need to invest a little more than baseless falsehoods into this discussion...:/
And yet, violence is at a 40-year low, while levels of firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, many of those other "1st world countries" are experiencing continuing increases in crime rates (UK, most of Western Europe, Australia...).
The facts speak for themselves. We can both spit numbers at each other all day long, but at the end of the day, nearly every major genocide in the last hundred years has been perpetrated on an unarmed population. Would that happen here? I don't know, talk to the Indians, I'm sure they would have an opinion on the matter.
You're forgetting something: 3D printers are sexy and fashionable. Although firearms technology has been open source for centuries, the appeal of printing one without needing shop class is quite apparent.
Also, it allows for extremely rapid prototyping, and collaborative development. Don't mock this: Android is built on an open source platform that was mocked for decades.
Paper cartridges work just fine for many firearms. Wooden bullets have been used extensively in history and work quite well. Heck, even silly putty can work as a bullet.
It's a proof of concept. Look at how far it has come in just a few weeks. In 5 years, this field will look completely different, especially as printers mature. We are in the "Wright brothers" era of 3D-printed firearms; of course they are hokey.
In a few years, this technology will not be anything to fuck around with.
Heck, in a few *months* this stuff will be getting pretty damn serious.
> The people who led the effort were doctors who got tired of having people dying from gun wounds in the emergency room.
This is incorrect. The doctors saying this have been miseducated by a specific campaign in the academic world to ban firearms. The campaign came first.
> I am basing it on the number of gun related accidental injuries (kid finds gun etc) and number of gun required crimes (single individual holds up bank, etc) which would generally not be possible or attempted with a less powerful weapon (e.g. knife).
This is not correct. A knife is a common weapon used to hold up a bank. In fact, many times, bank robbers do not actually have a weapon and instead simply threaten use of a gun or knife.
> The plus/minus for public ownership of hand guns is simply not good because there are only very very few cases where they have ever provided a benefit.
This is factually incorrect, and by a huge margin. Are you seriously ignorant of the recent Bureau of Justice studies on this very topic? There is quite a bit of serious research that has been done in this area, and the facts are quite clear. Legally owned handguns provide a vast and continuing benefit to the population as a whole by reducing the rate and severity of crime.
> And to say more guns will solve the problem (a surprisingly frequent argument) is analogous to a business with a negative margin trying to make it up on volume without ever improving the underlying margin.
There is a big difference between legally-owned guns and illegally-owned guns. The typical academic argument tries to compare guns with other threats to public safety such as alcohol or tobacco. Reducing tobacco availability does indeed reduce public harm. However, guns are a special case, because legally-owned guns have a function of protecting life.
Also, I only picked instances of 18yo boys and girls using firearms. The number of mothers and fathers who use firearms to protect their children is far higher, and vastly surpasses the number of children who die from gun accidents or mass shootings.
Banning guns leaves children vulnerable. How dare you.
To trump that, a pressure cooker bomb made from fireworks and ballbearings. Imagine the carnage of something like that in a closed room instead of a large, outdoor area. The tool is irrelevant to a madman bent on killing.
To law-abiding innocents protecting themselves, firearms are a powerful equalizer. Nothing has come close to firearms in enabling the weak and defenseless to protect themselves and those around them against violence.
A handful of extremely well-publicized incidents do not outweigh the truth of guns, crime, and gun ownership. Specifically: gun ownership is at record highs, while crime is at a 40-year low. While there may not be a causitive link, it is certain that legally-owned guns do NOT result in higher rates of violence whatsoever.
It has a magazine safety? I thought one of the major benefits of the original 1911 design is that it did NOT have a magazine safety? Perhaps my knowledge is incorrect.
Well, that is foolish as fuck. People like you are why so many children die in gun accidents. Congratulations, you are part of the problem.
Here is why: A majority of US households have guns. While many guns are stored safely, many are not. By failing to educate your children about gun safety, you make them susceptible to accidental death or injury when they play with real guns someone finds in a neighbor's house.
The NRA puts out gun safety material for children which is quite appropriate. "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" Even if you can't stand guns, hate guns, and would never touch one or want one or use one, you owe it to your children to teach them this much.
This was 5 minutes of looking. The list goes on and on. There are PLENTY of reasons for mature children and teenagers to know how to use firearms. One of the biggest reasons is the simple fact that it educates them in what freedom actually is.
You can enjoy a similar show by watching the value of the USD fluctuate over the course of the day. Granted, the percentage changes are not much, but as the transaction volume in Bitcoin increases, the market will steady. Also, once Bitcoin has a reasonable futures exchange, that will steady things out quite a bit.
Right, but the problem is, metals are hard to buy sometimes, and can be made illegal. They are also difficult to hide in any quantity. With bitcoin, you can store and send $1,000,000 as easily as $10.
I'm sure Argentinians are turning to other alternatives as well. However, I run a very small bitcoin exchange where you can buy bitcoin with a credit card, and most of my orders are from Argentina and Spain right now.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how any of that is a problem. Your tone seems to indicate that one or more of these are bad. Are they?
I would hook up an Arduino to this (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10747) and use it to control power on the internet router. It is not a physical disconnect, but it is probably the next best thing.
You can up the Arduino to listen via Ethernet, look for card swipes, check for physical presence, however you want to control it.
cej102937
Vitamin C IVs are well known and used. The practical upper limit for oral vitamin C is somewhere around 10-15 grams for an average adult. Why? You get the shits like crazy. IV vitamin C is a little different, and you can actually administer much higher doses by bypassing the gut.
LF
Any research on guns funded by the CDC is operating under a strong conflict of interest, because of the CDC's strong anti-gun pre-bias. http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots
Wintemute's methods may be sound, but the hypotheses he chooses to research are unspeakably biased and designed to fit a pre-made bias. He is clearly not interested in studying the actual effects of firearms in the civilian population. He is interested in conducting research that demonizes firearms.
I'm well aware of the controversies surrounding John Lott. There are many other researchers who have conducted research regarding firearms, not funded by the CDC or the NRA. For example, this paper written by Don Gates and Gary Mauser is a much better example of unbiased research by authors working in their field (unlike Wintermute, who is not actually qualified to perform research in this field). http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
While I would tend to agree with you, the videos of these things disintegrating has me questioning this belief. While the pressures are high, and the failures catastrophic, they do not seem to pose an unreasonable risk to the user (especially if eye protection is worn as it should be). .380 Auto is not the same thing as .223 or .40 S&W. There simply isn't that much going on. If you built one of these for .40 S&W, I am pretty sure it would go off like a bomb in your hand. However, observed disintegration failures from .380 Auto seem to involve large chunks of plastic at fairly low velocity.
Regardless, this field is definitely in its infancy. Safety is sure to increase over time, especially as printing methodologies improve and gun designs become more optimized for printing in plastic.
LF
The NRA lobbyists forbid government agencies from funding that research because the research was being carried out in order to fit premade hypotheses, not to actually prove or disprove hypotheses. What they were doing was not science, although it was certainly phrased to appear scientific.
I don't "believe in" peer-reviewed research. There are plenty of instances of researchers falsifying evidence, incorrectly conducting experiments, and outright lying. The peer review is not thorough enough to catch these errors. The anti-gun research carried out prior to the ban is definitely an example of this.
As a counterpoint to this, I would point out that the research that has been carried out apart from the government-funded work has generally pointed in a clear and consistent direction towards gun rights. If you read both sets of research, the government-funded research is full of holes, statistical errors, and obfuscations. The independent research is not. I have read both.
If you are actually interested in some point-by-point comparison, I can definitely go into them, but you'll need to invest a little more than baseless falsehoods into this discussion... :/
And yet, violence is at a 40-year low, while levels of firearms ownership is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, many of those other "1st world countries" are experiencing continuing increases in crime rates (UK, most of Western Europe, Australia...).
The facts speak for themselves. We can both spit numbers at each other all day long, but at the end of the day, nearly every major genocide in the last hundred years has been perpetrated on an unarmed population. Would that happen here? I don't know, talk to the Indians, I'm sure they would have an opinion on the matter.
Now I very confused: how does a magazine safety make lowering the hammer unsafe?
You're forgetting something: 3D printers are sexy and fashionable. Although firearms technology has been open source for centuries, the appeal of printing one without needing shop class is quite apparent.
Also, it allows for extremely rapid prototyping, and collaborative development. Don't mock this: Android is built on an open source platform that was mocked for decades.
Paper cartridges work just fine for many firearms. Wooden bullets have been used extensively in history and work quite well. Heck, even silly putty can work as a bullet.
No need for metal casings or bullets.
It's a proof of concept. Look at how far it has come in just a few weeks. In 5 years, this field will look completely different, especially as printers mature. We are in the "Wright brothers" era of 3D-printed firearms; of course they are hokey.
In a few years, this technology will not be anything to fuck around with.
Heck, in a few *months* this stuff will be getting pretty damn serious.
Nowadays, even the anti-gunners like Piers Morgan and Joe Scarborough are getting worred about impending tyranny. What are you, late to the party?
> The people who led the effort were doctors who got tired of having people dying from gun wounds in the emergency room.
This is incorrect. The doctors saying this have been miseducated by a specific campaign in the academic world to ban firearms. The campaign came first.
> I am basing it on the number of gun related accidental injuries (kid finds gun etc) and number of gun required crimes (single individual holds up bank, etc) which would generally not be possible or attempted with a less powerful weapon (e.g. knife).
This is not correct. A knife is a common weapon used to hold up a bank. In fact, many times, bank robbers do not actually have a weapon and instead simply threaten use of a gun or knife.
> The plus/minus for public ownership of hand guns is simply not good because there are only very very few cases where they have ever provided a benefit.
This is factually incorrect, and by a huge margin. Are you seriously ignorant of the recent Bureau of Justice studies on this very topic? There is quite a bit of serious research that has been done in this area, and the facts are quite clear. Legally owned handguns provide a vast and continuing benefit to the population as a whole by reducing the rate and severity of crime.
> And to say more guns will solve the problem (a surprisingly frequent argument) is analogous to a business with a negative margin trying to make it up on volume without ever improving the underlying margin.
There is a big difference between legally-owned guns and illegally-owned guns. The typical academic argument tries to compare guns with other threats to public safety such as alcohol or tobacco. Reducing tobacco availability does indeed reduce public harm. However, guns are a special case, because legally-owned guns have a function of protecting life.
Fair enough. I avoid firearms with magazine safeties, but I don't keep a comprehensive list of those that have them. :)
Also, I only picked instances of 18yo boys and girls using firearms. The number of mothers and fathers who use firearms to protect their children is far higher, and vastly surpasses the number of children who die from gun accidents or mass shootings.
Banning guns leaves children vulnerable. How dare you.
To trump that, a pressure cooker bomb made from fireworks and ballbearings. Imagine the carnage of something like that in a closed room instead of a large, outdoor area. The tool is irrelevant to a madman bent on killing.
To law-abiding innocents protecting themselves, firearms are a powerful equalizer. Nothing has come close to firearms in enabling the weak and defenseless to protect themselves and those around them against violence.
A handful of extremely well-publicized incidents do not outweigh the truth of guns, crime, and gun ownership. Specifically: gun ownership is at record highs, while crime is at a 40-year low. While there may not be a causitive link, it is certain that legally-owned guns do NOT result in higher rates of violence whatsoever.
It has a magazine safety? I thought one of the major benefits of the original 1911 design is that it did NOT have a magazine safety? Perhaps my knowledge is incorrect.
Well, that is foolish as fuck. People like you are why so many children die in gun accidents. Congratulations, you are part of the problem.
Here is why: A majority of US households have guns. While many guns are stored safely, many are not. By failing to educate your children about gun safety, you make them susceptible to accidental death or injury when they play with real guns someone finds in a neighbor's house.
The NRA puts out gun safety material for children which is quite appropriate. "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" Even if you can't stand guns, hate guns, and would never touch one or want one or use one, you owe it to your children to teach them this much.
LF
You are some kind of clueless.
17yo male defending his mother: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/27/florida-teen-fatally-shoots-father-in-desperate-attempt-to-protect-mother/?intcmp=trending
17yo alone defending himself: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/06/08/mansfield-17-year-old-shoots-man-who-broke-into-home.html
A 14yo and 17yo defending themselves: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10544178/
12yo girl alone defends herself with her mother's Glock: http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Twelve-year-old-Bryan-Co-girl-shoots-home-intruder--174678431.html
15yo girl defending herself: http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/15-yr-old-texas-girl-scares-off-two-burglars-with-her-dads-gun/
11yo girl defending herself with her own rifle: http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars
Boy defending himself in a home invasion / murder event: http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-news/Webster--2-charged-in-home-invasion--196306051.html
This was 5 minutes of looking. The list goes on and on. There are PLENTY of reasons for mature children and teenagers to know how to use firearms. One of the biggest reasons is the simple fact that it educates them in what freedom actually is.
Just for fun, here is a 13yo girl using a pistol, shotgun, and fully automatic rifle in competition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yd4B77PkeaU and here she is talking about the specific firearms she used, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TXYdzPiF4xc
LF
Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough.
In my opinion, the principle value of this is in the hystrionics it induces in the hearts of people who don't understand civil liberties.
You can enjoy a similar show by watching the value of the USD fluctuate over the course of the day. Granted, the percentage changes are not much, but as the transaction volume in Bitcoin increases, the market will steady. Also, once Bitcoin has a reasonable futures exchange, that will steady things out quite a bit.
False. Non-monetary income is taxed, this includes barter and gold/silver coins, and of course Bitcoin.
Ask and you shall receive: http://www2.egovlink.com/press-release-bitcoin.cfm
Right, but the problem is, metals are hard to buy sometimes, and can be made illegal. They are also difficult to hide in any quantity. With bitcoin, you can store and send $1,000,000 as easily as $10.
I'm sure Argentinians are turning to other alternatives as well. However, I run a very small bitcoin exchange where you can buy bitcoin with a credit card, and most of my orders are from Argentina and Spain right now.