How do you know what he thinks it means? Maybe the quote was presented to agree with a post, or maybe as a contrasting disagreement. Until you know what he meant by it, you should not be so quick to pull the trigger on a long winded explanation to affirm that a quote does indeed mean the obvious definition - lawyers should all be killed.
I have no faith that "the truth" and "the whole story" will ever come out of Belize. I don't trust the authorities of that country to do anything properly.
People being dumb would be them not figuring out to put the key in the hole and turn it. Something they've been accustomed to doing for decades.
I think it's fair to say that a new user interface (emergency key fob ports that may be well hidden and keys hidden in the fob) could confuse people without them being dumb.
Some of the car makes mentioned in the article have push to start, meaning the user never needs to use a physical key if it all works properly. I can't say what those cars are equipped with definitively, but my push to start key fob has a manual key hidden inside the key fob. It's somewhat physically difficult to get it out of the fob, and it only works on the doors, there is no cylinder to insert a key into to start the car.
The article mentions keyless entry systems specifically, and I'm not sure if they are using that term to cover cars with push button start ignitions.
The fact that I'm of the opinion that the general public should not have access to assault rifles does not mean I have an anti gun agenda.
I was simply pointing out to the parent post what the words "anti gun agenda" literally mean. If you are against certain guns, that could be construed as an anti gun agenda. Not all anti gun agendas include the removal of all guns, not are they necessarily bad things.
And the same holds true for about any other place that actually has that much history. Do you think Europe was free from warfare for very much of the last 2000 years?
I also think you are unfairly extrapolating current events to 2000 years of history. In the middle ages the Arab world would have looked on the west as the backwards tribes of warring people that didn't have the same level of knowledge of math and science.
This is all off point. daem0n1x was being a douche to imply that everything was fine and dandy there before the US arrived.
The media has distorted the term assault rifle to mean scary looking guns. It's propaganda, who wouldn't be against a gun with the descriptor of "assault"?
What exactly would be a dramatic drop from a couple per year? Even if a post ban year had only 1 or 2 mass shootings, the decrease could be a statistical anomaly with such a low incidence to begin with.
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that one of those 100 round drum magazines would jam. Seriously though, anyone with any experience with those drums, how big a pain in the ass is it to have that much weight hanging on the gun?
The North Hollywood bank robbery / shootout did involve fully automatic weapons. They were illegally modified, but they were fully automatic. Just pointing that out. I, like you, would like people to actually familiarize themselves with how guns operate before jumping to conclusions and use the wrong terms.
A North American hunter could very easily have three guns for valid hunting purposes. A shotgun for birds, a large caliber rifle for big game (elk, moose, bear), and a smaller caliber rifle for smaller animals. Often times hunters would rather have someone go hunting with them, which may mean having a spare gun for your buddy if he doesn't regularly hunt the size game you are going for. 3 guns is hardly an arsenal.
The rate of gun suicide in Canada is about equal to that in the US, which is significant because the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill yourself: that is the most common use of guns against humans in both the US and Canada, and why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?
You've made a logical error. You have equated the most common use of guns against humans as the most common usage of guns in general. I think very few people would agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill yourself.
banning "assault weapons" is a fools errand. It is nigh impossible to come up with a definition of an "assault weapon" that conveniently allows the sale and use of large caliber hunting rifles. I mean, look at the previous "ban". They were counting attributes like bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, and grenade launchers. Surely those elements make a gun more combat ready, but lack of them does not prevent large scale shootings.
Restrictions on high cap magazines would be the best of a lot of questionable choices. Then any type of firearm would still be allowed, but any spree killers would have to carry more magazines and spend more time reloading. Unfortunately, as we saw after the 1994 ban, the plethora of pre-existing large cap mags was still available and could be purchased. The only people the ban helped were those that had stocked up on these mags pre-ban as they started to fetch a large price during the ban and gun manufacturers right before the ban as people bought up everything they could get. Looking at news reports of current gun sales shows this pattern repeating.
Most of these gun control laws serve to benefit the firearm manufacturers. Look at the 1989 ban of importing non-sporting weapons (AKA "assault rifles"). All that did was allow domestic manufacturers to become the go to source of foreign designed guns (AK's, SKS, etc.), and even if you wished to import a wholly foreign made gun, a number of the parts had to be replaced with American made parts.
When laws that are intended to limit gun availability serve to benefit American gun manufacturers, you realize that the gun lobby does indeed have a lot of power.
For what it's worth an AR-15 was used in addition to the 2 9mm pistols.
True, bolt action rifles would be more than sufficient for use, but a bolt action rifle is not much safer than semi-auto rifles. They can have substantial magazines with relatively quick reload times. A trained operator could easily get a dozen shots out per minute. If speed is essential, it might be even faster to use a lever action.
Not a bad attempt. I still feel handguns can be useful. In my case, in the US just to the west of Canada, a handgun is easy to carry and can be life saving in a situation in the wild with a large toothed and clawed animal. Of course we could use similar rules and say, no semi-auto pistols, just double or single action revolvers, and no snub nose revolvers, only longer barrel ones.
Is a revolver considered a pistol there? I'm curious, because it's the only gun I own. I carry a.44 as a sidearm when I go hiking or camping in bear country to defend myself from a possible bear attack. I do not plan on killing bears so I don't carry a rifle, but I also can't talk a bear out of attacking me if it comes to that so I need a weapon. I don't trust my life to bear mace / pepper sprays.
Granted, this is an edge case, as not many people live in areas where bears are a real threat. I live in Alaska for reference.
You're a fool. A knife to a major artery is about as efficient as you can get at killing a person (efficient in terms of effort taken to kill the individual). Sure that doesn't scale to mass killings as well as a gun.
Then you go on to mention poisons. Poisons can be used to kill literally thousands of people if distributed properly.
It really doesn't matter if guns are the problem or not. It is a pointless argument, at least in America. There are so many guns in the hands of citizens all over the country that they could never be confiscated without major incidents between the gun owners and the would be gun takers. Laws that limit the availability of new guns and/or ammo will not have an effect for quite some time as long as people still have old "pre ban" guns and ammo for sale or trade.
So, we can enact laws to ban guns outright and have Ruby Ridge type incidents with the ATF, we could enact laws to stop future sales of certain guns and ammo and continue to deal with gun related incidents while old guns slowly slowly rust/decay/fail with time, or we can try and address the issues that make a person pick up a gun and go on a killing spree like this.
The reality is that the issues that cause people to do these things can be very complex and difficult to address properly. More importantly any steps to address those issues don't have the impact on voters like "ban all the guns" so politicians are less likely to pursue them.
No, using a gun for target practice is more like taking a car and driving it around traffic cones setup in a parking lot. You are practicing with the tool.
Painting a car and putting it in a museum is like painting a gun and putting it in a museum, a stupid analogy and idea.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know what he thinks it means? Maybe the quote was presented to agree with a post, or maybe as a contrasting disagreement. Until you know what he meant by it, you should not be so quick to pull the trigger on a long winded explanation to affirm that a quote does indeed mean the obvious definition - lawyers should all be killed.
I have no faith that "the truth" and "the whole story" will ever come out of Belize. I don't trust the authorities of that country to do anything properly.
People being dumb would be them not figuring out to put the key in the hole and turn it. Something they've been accustomed to doing for decades.
I think it's fair to say that a new user interface (emergency key fob ports that may be well hidden and keys hidden in the fob) could confuse people without them being dumb.
Some of the car makes mentioned in the article have push to start, meaning the user never needs to use a physical key if it all works properly. I can't say what those cars are equipped with definitively, but my push to start key fob has a manual key hidden inside the key fob. It's somewhat physically difficult to get it out of the fob, and it only works on the doors, there is no cylinder to insert a key into to start the car.
The article mentions keyless entry systems specifically, and I'm not sure if they are using that term to cover cars with push button start ignitions.
The fact that I'm of the opinion that the general public should not have access to assault rifles does not mean I have an anti gun agenda.
I was simply pointing out to the parent post what the words "anti gun agenda" literally mean. If you are against certain guns, that could be construed as an anti gun agenda. Not all anti gun agendas include the removal of all guns, not are they necessarily bad things.
An anti-gun agenda is an agenda to reduce the number of guns or eliminate them all together. I think that is rather obvious, isn't it?
Why do you think using the term agenda implies a conspiracy theory / government take over / hidden agendas?
agenda - noun: a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc
And the same holds true for about any other place that actually has that much history. Do you think Europe was free from warfare for very much of the last 2000 years?
I also think you are unfairly extrapolating current events to 2000 years of history. In the middle ages the Arab world would have looked on the west as the backwards tribes of warring people that didn't have the same level of knowledge of math and science.
This is all off point. daem0n1x was being a douche to imply that everything was fine and dandy there before the US arrived.
Go ahead and let them have fully auto AKs. They would just burn through ammo much faster with far less accurate shooting. This would save lives!
Define "nearly constant". 33 years is the longest stretch without a conflict in the history of the US. That sounds like near constant to me.
The media has distorted the term assault rifle to mean scary looking guns. It's propaganda, who wouldn't be against a gun with the descriptor of "assault"?
What exactly would be a dramatic drop from a couple per year? Even if a post ban year had only 1 or 2 mass shootings, the decrease could be a statistical anomaly with such a low incidence to begin with.
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that one of those 100 round drum magazines would jam. Seriously though, anyone with any experience with those drums, how big a pain in the ass is it to have that much weight hanging on the gun?
The North Hollywood bank robbery / shootout did involve fully automatic weapons. They were illegally modified, but they were fully automatic. Just pointing that out. I, like you, would like people to actually familiarize themselves with how guns operate before jumping to conclusions and use the wrong terms.
A North American hunter could very easily have three guns for valid hunting purposes. A shotgun for birds, a large caliber rifle for big game (elk, moose, bear), and a smaller caliber rifle for smaller animals. Often times hunters would rather have someone go hunting with them, which may mean having a spare gun for your buddy if he doesn't regularly hunt the size game you are going for. 3 guns is hardly an arsenal.
The rate of gun suicide in Canada is about equal to that in the US, which is significant because the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill yourself: that is the most common use of guns against humans in both the US and Canada, and why wouldn't we identify the most common use as the purpose of the tool?
You've made a logical error. You have equated the most common use of guns against humans as the most common usage of guns in general. I think very few people would agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill yourself.
banning "assault weapons" is a fools errand. It is nigh impossible to come up with a definition of an "assault weapon" that conveniently allows the sale and use of large caliber hunting rifles. I mean, look at the previous "ban". They were counting attributes like bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, and grenade launchers. Surely those elements make a gun more combat ready, but lack of them does not prevent large scale shootings.
Restrictions on high cap magazines would be the best of a lot of questionable choices. Then any type of firearm would still be allowed, but any spree killers would have to carry more magazines and spend more time reloading. Unfortunately, as we saw after the 1994 ban, the plethora of pre-existing large cap mags was still available and could be purchased. The only people the ban helped were those that had stocked up on these mags pre-ban as they started to fetch a large price during the ban and gun manufacturers right before the ban as people bought up everything they could get. Looking at news reports of current gun sales shows this pattern repeating.
Most of these gun control laws serve to benefit the firearm manufacturers. Look at the 1989 ban of importing non-sporting weapons (AKA "assault rifles"). All that did was allow domestic manufacturers to become the go to source of foreign designed guns (AK's, SKS, etc.), and even if you wished to import a wholly foreign made gun, a number of the parts had to be replaced with American made parts.
When laws that are intended to limit gun availability serve to benefit American gun manufacturers, you realize that the gun lobby does indeed have a lot of power.
For what it's worth an AR-15 was used in addition to the 2 9mm pistols.
You're splitting hairs to make an anti gun argument. I didn't realize there were kinds of mass murder.
True, bolt action rifles would be more than sufficient for use, but a bolt action rifle is not much safer than semi-auto rifles. They can have substantial magazines with relatively quick reload times. A trained operator could easily get a dozen shots out per minute. If speed is essential, it might be even faster to use a lever action.
Not a bad attempt. I still feel handguns can be useful. In my case, in the US just to the west of Canada, a handgun is easy to carry and can be life saving in a situation in the wild with a large toothed and clawed animal. Of course we could use similar rules and say, no semi-auto pistols, just double or single action revolvers, and no snub nose revolvers, only longer barrel ones.
Is a revolver considered a pistol there? I'm curious, because it's the only gun I own. I carry a .44 as a sidearm when I go hiking or camping in bear country to defend myself from a possible bear attack. I do not plan on killing bears so I don't carry a rifle, but I also can't talk a bear out of attacking me if it comes to that so I need a weapon. I don't trust my life to bear mace / pepper sprays.
Granted, this is an edge case, as not many people live in areas where bears are a real threat. I live in Alaska for reference.
The problem is that you can take that argument the opposite direction and say "at what point do we stop outlawing weapons".
You're a fool. A knife to a major artery is about as efficient as you can get at killing a person (efficient in terms of effort taken to kill the individual). Sure that doesn't scale to mass killings as well as a gun.
Then you go on to mention poisons. Poisons can be used to kill literally thousands of people if distributed properly.
It really doesn't matter if guns are the problem or not. It is a pointless argument, at least in America. There are so many guns in the hands of citizens all over the country that they could never be confiscated without major incidents between the gun owners and the would be gun takers. Laws that limit the availability of new guns and/or ammo will not have an effect for quite some time as long as people still have old "pre ban" guns and ammo for sale or trade.
So, we can enact laws to ban guns outright and have Ruby Ridge type incidents with the ATF, we could enact laws to stop future sales of certain guns and ammo and continue to deal with gun related incidents while old guns slowly slowly rust/decay/fail with time, or we can try and address the issues that make a person pick up a gun and go on a killing spree like this.
The reality is that the issues that cause people to do these things can be very complex and difficult to address properly. More importantly any steps to address those issues don't have the impact on voters like "ban all the guns" so politicians are less likely to pursue them.
Really? What "normal person" would be in an elementary school carrying a gun and been able to stop this person?
No, using a gun for target practice is more like taking a car and driving it around traffic cones setup in a parking lot. You are practicing with the tool.
Painting a car and putting it in a museum is like painting a gun and putting it in a museum, a stupid analogy and idea.