No equivalence with Israel, there are mosques there. In fact, there's a mosque sitting on Judaism's most holy site. There is no equivalence with Vatican City, since it's basically one big church compound, not a large city like Mecca (over 2,500 times the size of Vatican City). The Al-Masjid al-áaram is almost the size of Vatican City, so you're talking the equivalent of putting a church within the Mosque's compound.
Can a Muslim enter Vatican City? Of course. Can he proselytize others to his religion while there? Of course.
When can I enter Mecca? I can't, because the Quran says I'm unclean. Can a Christian proselytize in Saudi Arabia? Nope, illegal.
I encountered this when reading the Bible too. Sometimes it's a real explanation showing you what you may not have caught, letting the passage make more sense. But more often it's logical gymnastics attempting to explain away something bad or wrong in the text, or the person explaining just making shit up.
1. Take existing product that basically sucks 2. Put some real design effort into it 3. Produce first product of the type that actually works well
Consumer GUIs sucked before the Mac, MP3 players sucked before the iPod, smart phones sucked befor the iPhone, tablets sucked before the iPad.
This might have something to do with the industrial designer being one of the senior VPs in the company, answerable only to the CEO, and the hardware engineering VP is right next to him. Look at the Dell or HP executive ranks and you will find no equivalent.
The weapons you are describing are military derivative firearms and by all rights,
So what? Most guns on the market are military derivative in some way. Many bolt-action rifles owe their design to the Mauser. Most semi-auto pistols 9mm and above are operating on an action developed for the M1911 or Browing HiPower.
>We, as a nation, have proven ourselves incapable of properly storing our firearms, incompetent at assessing who should have a firearm
Many of us have shown ourselves to be incapable of intelligent and responsible speech, yet here we are supporting the 1st Amendment for the people spewing lies about weapons to try to get them banned, and even for the Westboro Baptists. This is not kindergarten. You don't punish the class for the wrongdoings of the few.
We do not deserve them now.
Maybe you don't. Enjoy your non-ownership, but leave the rest of us alone.
I think the point is that resistance will be needed whenever it stops being a free, democratically elected government. At that point, you probably wouldn't be defending the government.
Remember, the Nazis were democratically elected to power, but after the March 1933 election all other parties were banned. Germany became a de-facto dictatorship regardless of the "democratic" elections that were held in subsequent years.
The average military sniper may only shoot dozen rounds per year in actual combat, but he'll shoot thousands of rounds per year in practice. Whatever your end goal, be it sniper, hunter or target shooting, you need to practice to get good and stay good. The cheapest way to do it is, as with most other commodities, to buy in bulk.
A report I read a while back said that overall the most damaging aspect of smoking pot on the lives of the users are the legal consequences of the prohibition, not the pot itself.
One of my early CS professors for sure. Not one number could be found in your code. If you wanted to divide by 2, you'd better have a const up top defined as 2 and then use it.
First, that definition. They want to ban anything over 10 rounds. Now for an ultra-compact pistol or a very old pistol design like a 1911, they were designed to work with a magazine that holds fewer than 10 rounds. However, normal-size semi-auto handguns designed in the last 30 or so years have generally been built to hold 13-20 round magazines as standard.
So, in a Sig-Sauer P228 designed for 13 rounds, a 20-round magazine is extended, as it extends a couple inches below the grip. In an FN Five-seveN, 20-rounds is the standard magazine size that fits within the grip. The real definition of "extended magazine" in a pistol is whether it fits within the grip as designed.
Seriously, a 13-round magazine was considered large when the Browning Hi-Power came out -- back in the 1930s. Technology has moved past that now.
For rifles, the AR-15 was designed for 10-30 round magazines as standard. The "banana clip" you see billed as a "large-capacity" or "extended" magazine is simply a standard-size magazine. They do make larger ones, but honestly I'd prefer the bad guys use those, because they're not very reliable. The Aurora shooter was hindered when his drum magazine feed jammed.
Okay, I have a question: what is the purpose of extended magazines? Why do people want them so badly?
Now to the purpose, it's not having to reload. I got an extended magazine for target shooting so I could concentrate on the shooting for longer periods without the distraction of reloading. For self-defense, well, the bad guys aren't going to abide by any ban, and you might want the option to have a magazine as big as what they're going to be bringing.
Why wanting them so badly? I'd bet a lot of the "want" is in reaction to the intent to ban them. People have been saying that Obama should be awarded "gun salesman of the decade" for his efforts to encourage more purchases -- people buying before the ban what they otherwise might not have bothered to purchase.
But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety
Not really, Despite what you hear, "assault weapons" use in crime is relatively rare. Rifles of all types account for about 2% of gun crime, and of those "assault weapons" are a smaller percentage.
statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
Actually, the last assault weapons ban did pretty much nothing for the crime rate.
With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. - Ronald Wilson Reagan
This was the guy who only signed gun restrictions in California after the Black Panthers held a legal, peaceful protest in the CA Capitol with legally carried weapons. The purpose is to disarm law-abiding citizens, not to disarm criminals.
28 people were killed by guns yesterday, and most of them probably didn't deserve to die.
But of the kinds of guns they're looking to ban, it's likely nobody was killed by one yesterday. As you say, "Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon." An "assault weapon" ban is the result of emotion and political power plays, not the hard analysis of statistics.
If any shooter bothers to practice just a little, he can get rifle reloads in around a second, pistol reloads even faster. They were able to get the Arizona guy because he screwed up.
Conversely, the Aurora guy used a very large 100-round magazine, and many people were saved because those are unreliable.
If you want a real common-sense rule, no magazine larger than the weapon was designed to accept. I would consider this even to be a safety regulation.
A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders.
No, it didn't. The Justice Department could find no measurable change in crime attributed to the AWB. No respectable organiztion could find such an effect, including the CDC. The reason it's hard to get a good grasp on "assault weapon" crime? Because it's so damn rare relative to other crime.
However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.
Just look at the numbers there, 385 deaths and 455 injuries = 459 incidents? In any case, 385 deaths over 8 years. That would make "assault weapons" one of the rarer causes of death in the US. This is much less than even death from circumcision.
At Columbine, Harris shot from his carbine and his shotgun. He had 13 10-round magazines, of which he used 10, firing over 90 rounds. He fired at least 25 times from his shotgun, which he had to load one shell at a time. That's a lot of reloading, and over 120 rounds fired.
Klebold used his pistol, for which he had three large-capacity magazines, one over 50 IIRC. He only managed about 50 rounds, which he could have done reloading at most once.
This is why we like definitions. None of the current proposals ban anything that can fire a burst. So you talking about how many people can be killed in a single burst is just emotional fear mongering that contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
Anything that can fire bursts is already illegal unless it fits certain criteria and is properly registered. Not one -- repeat NOT ONE -- of these lawfully owned weapons has been used by a civilian to commit a crime.
After that AR lower was shown on YouTube, some Democrat congressman started talking about mandating chips in all 3D printers to prevent them from printing what the government doesn't want them to print.
But I don't see where they get the "right to self-defence" from. It's not in the 2nd amendment as I read it.
So you're one of those people who thinks if a right isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution then nobody has it? Where's the "right to privacy" that the pro-abortion camp is always talking about?
In any case, read the commentary of the times. They consider self-defense one of the reasons for the 2nd. Some state constitutions of the time do explicitly mention it.
This was also rather crassly noted by the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens
We are all more stupid for having read that dissent. It's strange to see someone try to twist logic so much in order to argue the people don't have a right.
." I assumed that expanding ammo, being illegal in war, was also illegal for self-defence. That's just weird.
For self-protection you want to kill your assailant as quickly as possible. For hunting, you want a quick-clean kill for humane reasons. Expanding bullets are perfect for these.
War, at least between "civilized" nations, is a game played by rules stated in treaty. Expanding bullets had been around forever, but they were low-velocity. Over a hundred years ago it was noticed that the new-fangled high-velocity jacketed bullets, when coupled with expanding capability, produced some pretty serious wounds. This was protested as against the rules of war, since you mainly want to cleanly wound the opposing soldier, making the medic's job easier. So the major powers got together and outlawed them at the Hague Convention.
Slashdot Mirror
No equivalence with Israel, there are mosques there. In fact, there's a mosque sitting on Judaism's most holy site. There is no equivalence with Vatican City, since it's basically one big church compound, not a large city like Mecca (over 2,500 times the size of Vatican City). The Al-Masjid al-áaram is almost the size of Vatican City, so you're talking the equivalent of putting a church within the Mosque's compound.
Can a Muslim enter Vatican City? Of course. Can he proselytize others to his religion while there? Of course.
When can I enter Mecca? I can't, because the Quran says I'm unclean. Can a Christian proselytize in Saudi Arabia? Nope, illegal.
Sufism is apostate.
Great, so when can we get that building permit for a synagogue or church in Mecca?
"Explaining the context"
I encountered this when reading the Bible too. Sometimes it's a real explanation showing you what you may not have caught, letting the passage make more sense. But more often it's logical gymnastics attempting to explain away something bad or wrong in the text, or the person explaining just making shit up.
You can still find the old 8-bit 6502 in microcontrollers these days.
1. Take existing product that basically sucks
2. Put some real design effort into it
3. Produce first product of the type that actually works well
Consumer GUIs sucked before the Mac, MP3 players sucked before the iPod, smart phones sucked befor the iPhone, tablets sucked before the iPad.
This might have something to do with the industrial designer being one of the senior VPs in the company, answerable only to the CEO, and the hardware engineering VP is right next to him. Look at the Dell or HP executive ranks and you will find no equivalent.
So what? Most guns on the market are military derivative in some way. Many bolt-action rifles owe their design to the Mauser. Most semi-auto pistols 9mm and above are operating on an action developed for the M1911 or Browing HiPower.
>We, as a nation, have proven ourselves incapable of properly storing our firearms, incompetent at assessing who should have a firearm
Many of us have shown ourselves to be incapable of intelligent and responsible speech, yet here we are supporting the 1st Amendment for the people spewing lies about weapons to try to get them banned, and even for the Westboro Baptists. This is not kindergarten. You don't punish the class for the wrongdoings of the few.
Maybe you don't. Enjoy your non-ownership, but leave the rest of us alone.
I think the point is that resistance will be needed whenever it stops being a free, democratically elected government. At that point, you probably wouldn't be defending the government.
Remember, the Nazis were democratically elected to power, but after the March 1933 election all other parties were banned. Germany became a de-facto dictatorship regardless of the "democratic" elections that were held in subsequent years.
That's the only answer that is required.
The average military sniper may only shoot dozen rounds per year in actual combat, but he'll shoot thousands of rounds per year in practice. Whatever your end goal, be it sniper, hunter or target shooting, you need to practice to get good and stay good. The cheapest way to do it is, as with most other commodities, to buy in bulk.
A report I read a while back said that overall the most damaging aspect of smoking pot on the lives of the users are the legal consequences of the prohibition, not the pot itself.
One of my early CS professors for sure. Not one number could be found in your code. If you wanted to divide by 2, you'd better have a const up top defined as 2 and then use it.
You smoke pot so we're kicking you out of school
You'll lose the opportunity to be educated and socialize normally with a mainstream peer group
We'll use your now sub-standard IQ and abnormal social skills to defend the prohibition on pot
First, that definition. They want to ban anything over 10 rounds. Now for an ultra-compact pistol or a very old pistol design like a 1911, they were designed to work with a magazine that holds fewer than 10 rounds. However, normal-size semi-auto handguns designed in the last 30 or so years have generally been built to hold 13-20 round magazines as standard.
So, in a Sig-Sauer P228 designed for 13 rounds, a 20-round magazine is extended, as it extends a couple inches below the grip. In an FN Five-seveN, 20-rounds is the standard magazine size that fits within the grip. The real definition of "extended magazine" in a pistol is whether it fits within the grip as designed.
Seriously, a 13-round magazine was considered large when the Browning Hi-Power came out -- back in the 1930s. Technology has moved past that now.
For rifles, the AR-15 was designed for 10-30 round magazines as standard. The "banana clip" you see billed as a "large-capacity" or "extended" magazine is simply a standard-size magazine. They do make larger ones, but honestly I'd prefer the bad guys use those, because they're not very reliable. The Aurora shooter was hindered when his drum magazine feed jammed.
Now to the purpose, it's not having to reload. I got an extended magazine for target shooting so I could concentrate on the shooting for longer periods without the distraction of reloading. For self-defense, well, the bad guys aren't going to abide by any ban, and you might want the option to have a magazine as big as what they're going to be bringing.
Why wanting them so badly? I'd bet a lot of the "want" is in reaction to the intent to ban them. People have been saying that Obama should be awarded "gun salesman of the decade" for his efforts to encourage more purchases -- people buying before the ban what they otherwise might not have bothered to purchase.
Not really, Despite what you hear, "assault weapons" use in crime is relatively rare. Rifles of all types account for about 2% of gun crime, and of those "assault weapons" are a smaller percentage.
Actually, the last assault weapons ban did pretty much nothing for the crime rate.
This was the guy who only signed gun restrictions in California after the Black Panthers held a legal, peaceful protest in the CA Capitol with legally carried weapons. The purpose is to disarm law-abiding citizens, not to disarm criminals.
But of the kinds of guns they're looking to ban, it's likely nobody was killed by one yesterday. As you say, "Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon." An "assault weapon" ban is the result of emotion and political power plays, not the hard analysis of statistics.
Same rationale as now: Criminals used them in a few high-profile cases, so the statist authoritarians got the traction to restrict them for everybody.
If any shooter bothers to practice just a little, he can get rifle reloads in around a second, pistol reloads even faster. They were able to get the Arizona guy because he screwed up.
Conversely, the Aurora guy used a very large 100-round magazine, and many people were saved because those are unreliable.
If you want a real common-sense rule, no magazine larger than the weapon was designed to accept. I would consider this even to be a safety regulation.
No, it didn't. The Justice Department could find no measurable change in crime attributed to the AWB. No respectable organiztion could find such an effect, including the CDC. The reason it's hard to get a good grasp on "assault weapon" crime? Because it's so damn rare relative to other crime.
Just look at the numbers there, 385 deaths and 455 injuries = 459 incidents? In any case, 385 deaths over 8 years. That would make "assault weapons" one of the rarer causes of death in the US. This is much less than even death from circumcision.
At Columbine, Harris shot from his carbine and his shotgun. He had 13 10-round magazines, of which he used 10, firing over 90 rounds. He fired at least 25 times from his shotgun, which he had to load one shell at a time. That's a lot of reloading, and over 120 rounds fired.
Klebold used his pistol, for which he had three large-capacity magazines, one over 50 IIRC. He only managed about 50 rounds, which he could have done reloading at most once.
This is why we like definitions. None of the current proposals ban anything that can fire a burst. So you talking about how many people can be killed in a single burst is just emotional fear mongering that contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
Anything that can fire bursts is already illegal unless it fits certain criteria and is properly registered. Not one -- repeat NOT ONE -- of these lawfully owned weapons has been used by a civilian to commit a crime.
After that AR lower was shown on YouTube, some Democrat congressman started talking about mandating chips in all 3D printers to prevent them from printing what the government doesn't want them to print.
So you're one of those people who thinks if a right isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution then nobody has it? Where's the "right to privacy" that the pro-abortion camp is always talking about?
In any case, read the commentary of the times. They consider self-defense one of the reasons for the 2nd. Some state constitutions of the time do explicitly mention it.
We are all more stupid for having read that dissent. It's strange to see someone try to twist logic so much in order to argue the people don't have a right.
For self-protection you want to kill your assailant as quickly as possible. For hunting, you want a quick-clean kill for humane reasons. Expanding bullets are perfect for these.
War, at least between "civilized" nations, is a game played by rules stated in treaty. Expanding bullets had been around forever, but they were low-velocity. Over a hundred years ago it was noticed that the new-fangled high-velocity jacketed bullets, when coupled with expanding capability, produced some pretty serious wounds. This was protested as against the rules of war, since you mainly want to cleanly wound the opposing soldier, making the medic's job easier. So the major powers got together and outlawed them at the Hague Convention.
The former is standard geek art, but the latter sounds pretty cool too. Talk about low rolling resistance wheels.
Don't forget the hard drive platter mobiles.