Who says it has to be overthrowing a tyrannical and dictatorial federal government. Imagine if a sheriff had about 200 deputies as his personal army and was using them to fix elections and ensure him and his buddies get elected to the positions (both state and federal) he wants. Then a group of armed civilians overthrow him. No Apache gun ships, no tanks, no drones. Armed civilians would be quite workable. It's happened on us soil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) .
People pretend tyranny only happens at the highest levels, but the lower levels hit closer to home and can affect you personally easier.
That's a poor article to link to, it admits the reason for the increased risk associated with guns is due to suicide. Without a gun the suicide method would just be something else. Further, you'd save twice as many lives by just banning anything that allows you to get more than 2 feet off the ground than you would banning guns.
It wouldn't happen right away, but that is kind of the point of loans from the bank. I can tell you right now the growth definitely won't occur unless you trim the fat and have room to grow, instead of having a collapse and rebuild we have stagnation that slowly expands but provides nothing to society at large. Death and collapse are natural. It needs to happen for life to come through, propping up industry players that need to be propped up to survive is no way to have a healthy economy.
Ah yes "too big to fail" the antithesis of capitalism. In a capitalistic society if you say a company is too big to fail, the company has already failed and is a cancerous growth you need to get off of life support right away. Funny you say Halliburton and Katrina, didn't Halliburton do nothing but rebuild military bases? The very thing military had a lot of... cheap grunt labor Halliburton stepped in and fixed it for 100x the cost while the military still paid that grunt labor to sit around doing nothing... meanwhile the power companies took out bonds to hire additional labor to fix their infrastructure themselves... I'm sorry, how was this an argument for keeping these bloated dinosaurs around? Also the power grid was rebuilt over the course of months after Katrina, hell after Isaac we didn't even have the power grid rebuilt within 10 days, my parents were without power around two weeks. Katrina I was without power for around a month.
The idea is with that industry shrinking it will free up capital for other industries to grow. Aerospace may well shrink but that land will then be sold (real estate growth), banks will loan money to build new factories on that land (financial growth) and finally just maybe a new ford factory will be built there (Automotive growth.) It won't be instant, it will be painful, but in the long run it's a lot better than continuing to funnel money into an industry that... clearly is way too big and needs to be pruned. Boeing may day, cessna may die. The aerospace industry isn't big enough to support all of these players at their level so they may very well die, but the result will be those that survive are leaner meaner and able to be agile enough to show some real development rather than just filling out military contracts in a way that does not benefit society at all.
To add to it the reason airguns are included in those statistics is because they are just as illegal as firearms using gunpowder. So why would criminals turn to something that is just as banned if the supply is just as restricted? the truth is the proportions of gun crime involving "imitations" and actual firearms has stayed roughly the same in those numbers showing a doubling of gun crime.
The uk gun crime statistics only include lethal firing weapons. "imitation" guns are in fact deadly weapons. Gun crime has doubled in the uk no matter how you look at it.
Australia had relatively strict assault rifle laws before the massacre in that you had to prove to the government you should have a gun before you could get one. The government effectively said Martin Bryant was good to have a gun (with stricter criteria than most police officers have before hiring in the us mind you.)
Worse yet violent crime in Australia has stayed the same, it's just instead of being shot now you get bludgeoned or sliced up yay progress! You would save twice as many lives in the us by banning ladders as you would banning firearms (assuming you could actually remove the firearms from everyone including criminals) and you would cause fewer rapes and muggings by banning ladders.
Imitation firearms only include guns that fire pellets or guns that fire blanks, blanks are quite deadly at close range and well airguns were used to conquer the Louisiana purchase so I think it's quite well established that they're deadly (as well as battle Napoleon). Those stats are both from before and after the gunlaw changes, so you'd have to remove them from both sets of numbers if you want to remove their "skew", and according to the wall street journal,, gun laws in australia were quite strict at the time of the massacre. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
Why is that hilarious? the m16 has a larger sight radius, gets higher velocities with the same ammunition and has what many consider to be a more reliable gas system than the m4.
Actually a power is something granted, a right is something inherent. Rights are assured by the constitution but not granted. Whereas powers are granted. Without the constitution you still have a right to free speech, own firearms, due process. Without the constitution the government does not have the power to tax you.
Australia already had very strict gun control laws at the time of the port arthur massacre. And no british gun crime stats dont include toy guns where are you getting that made up information from? I can believe it includes air guns considering at the time of the second ammendment's writing one of the the most deadly guns out there was an air gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Are you referring to Britain where they've had several massacres and gun crime has doubled over the past decade since they effectively banned guns? The US where we had one of the worst massacres in the middle of the Assault weapon ban? or Australia where one of their worst massacres ever was at the height of their gun control laws and included 35 deaths and 21 injuries?
Since you want statistics involving self defense, it's rather hard to find compiled reports, every report i find of adolescents defending themselves shows the adolescent successfully thwarting the attack, here's a more general statistic
A woman who fights back gains an 86% chance of avoiding the rape and incurs little chance of additional injury. Most injuries occur before the woman starts fighting back. Women using knives or guns in self defense were raped less than 1% of the time. (Kleck and Sayles, 1990)
(from http://www.cjselfdefense.com/statistics.shtml
Yeah defending yourself sounds like a horrible idea, only 86% chance of coming out ahead vs just laying there and taking it eh? bring a gun and it goes up to 99% chance of coming out ahead.
I base it on that the majority of the reported cases involving adolescent children defending themselves with guns involve the adolescent children coming out on top.
Actually that was just google result #1, there were 5 more that i saw right off the bat of instances of young children thwarting home invasions thanks to guns. The trick is the child didn't threaten the violent criminal, they just pulled the trigger as soon as they had a shot. The best part is it wasn't fatal for anyone, lives were saved thanks to a gun!
If neither the aggressor nor the intended victim has a gun, then the attack and the defence depend, as you say, on their physical characteristics. If the aggressor is stronger, they can commit a crime with near-impunity. If the defender is stronger, they can defend themselves successfully.
You do understand that the aggressor is not going to choose to initiate an attack on someone who is physically stronger than them right? They will choose to rob someone who is at a disadvantage, if that person then turns out to have a gun it then tips the scales back in favor of balance. It gets even worse for the aggressor because anyone within gunshot range will hear it and likely look over to see what is going on thus providing more opportunities for the aggressor to be stopped even if they open with shooting. The ideal situation is to have it so the aggressor does not know who is in possession of a firearm and thus is unable to choose suitable targets and is forced to choose a more honest method of stealing, like banking.
This ain't The Hobbit, those thugs aren't going to turn to stone the moment the sun rises. You've pulled a gun on them and escalated the situation. You've basically ensured that at least one person dies, and it's probably going to be you. Congratulations on turning a bad situation even worse.
I think if a 12-year old girl can manage to come out alive from a home invasion thanks to a gun I certainly can.
Don't forget to outlaw sheet metal brakes, tin snips, bandsaws and anything else that can be used to make high capacity magazines (protip, ammo clips only come in 10 rounds for the ar-15 so there are no high or low capacity clips). I would suspect most major criminal operations don't bother making their own high capacity magazines however, it's simpler to buy or steal them from militaries around the world. So don't forget to limit our own military guys to 10 round magazines as well.
Buckshot is horrible about over penetration, it'll go through 3 layers of Sheetrock and do nothing but spread out it's pattern. 55 grain full metal jacket boat tail rounds in.223 caliber on the other hand fragment beautifully. That's why people serious about defending their home would prefer to use an assault rifle vs a shotgun.
The military usually takes advantage of those larger magazines for suppressive fire. Your goal with suppressive fire isn't to kill your target but rather to keep your targets head down long enough for you to do what you need to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says it has to be overthrowing a tyrannical and dictatorial federal government. Imagine if a sheriff had about 200 deputies as his personal army and was using them to fix elections and ensure him and his buddies get elected to the positions (both state and federal) he wants. Then a group of armed civilians overthrow him. No Apache gun ships, no tanks, no drones. Armed civilians would be quite workable. It's happened on us soil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) . People pretend tyranny only happens at the highest levels, but the lower levels hit closer to home and can affect you personally easier.
That's a poor article to link to, it admits the reason for the increased risk associated with guns is due to suicide. Without a gun the suicide method would just be something else. Further, you'd save twice as many lives by just banning anything that allows you to get more than 2 feet off the ground than you would banning guns.
I just had a flash of terror at the thought of them having a $5,000 per primer tax.
You don't think Silicon is an appropriate element for a technology company?
It wouldn't happen right away, but that is kind of the point of loans from the bank. I can tell you right now the growth definitely won't occur unless you trim the fat and have room to grow, instead of having a collapse and rebuild we have stagnation that slowly expands but provides nothing to society at large. Death and collapse are natural. It needs to happen for life to come through, propping up industry players that need to be propped up to survive is no way to have a healthy economy.
Ah yes "too big to fail" the antithesis of capitalism. In a capitalistic society if you say a company is too big to fail, the company has already failed and is a cancerous growth you need to get off of life support right away. Funny you say Halliburton and Katrina, didn't Halliburton do nothing but rebuild military bases? The very thing military had a lot of... cheap grunt labor Halliburton stepped in and fixed it for 100x the cost while the military still paid that grunt labor to sit around doing nothing... meanwhile the power companies took out bonds to hire additional labor to fix their infrastructure themselves... I'm sorry, how was this an argument for keeping these bloated dinosaurs around? Also the power grid was rebuilt over the course of months after Katrina, hell after Isaac we didn't even have the power grid rebuilt within 10 days, my parents were without power around two weeks. Katrina I was without power for around a month.
That doesn't make sense, most of the lead dust floating around from gun firing comes from the lead styphnatein the primers not from the bullets.
The idea is with that industry shrinking it will free up capital for other industries to grow. Aerospace may well shrink but that land will then be sold (real estate growth), banks will loan money to build new factories on that land (financial growth) and finally just maybe a new ford factory will be built there (Automotive growth.) It won't be instant, it will be painful, but in the long run it's a lot better than continuing to funnel money into an industry that... clearly is way too big and needs to be pruned. Boeing may day, cessna may die. The aerospace industry isn't big enough to support all of these players at their level so they may very well die, but the result will be those that survive are leaner meaner and able to be agile enough to show some real development rather than just filling out military contracts in a way that does not benefit society at all.
To add to it the reason airguns are included in those statistics is because they are just as illegal as firearms using gunpowder. So why would criminals turn to something that is just as banned if the supply is just as restricted? the truth is the proportions of gun crime involving "imitations" and actual firearms has stayed roughly the same in those numbers showing a doubling of gun crime.
The uk gun crime statistics only include lethal firing weapons. "imitation" guns are in fact deadly weapons. Gun crime has doubled in the uk no matter how you look at it. Australia had relatively strict assault rifle laws before the massacre in that you had to prove to the government you should have a gun before you could get one. The government effectively said Martin Bryant was good to have a gun (with stricter criteria than most police officers have before hiring in the us mind you.) Worse yet violent crime in Australia has stayed the same, it's just instead of being shot now you get bludgeoned or sliced up yay progress! You would save twice as many lives in the us by banning ladders as you would banning firearms (assuming you could actually remove the firearms from everyone including criminals) and you would cause fewer rapes and muggings by banning ladders.
Imitation firearms only include guns that fire pellets or guns that fire blanks, blanks are quite deadly at close range and well airguns were used to conquer the Louisiana purchase so I think it's quite well established that they're deadly (as well as battle Napoleon). Those stats are both from before and after the gunlaw changes, so you'd have to remove them from both sets of numbers if you want to remove their "skew", and according to the wall street journal,, gun laws in australia were quite strict at the time of the massacre. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
Why is that hilarious? the m16 has a larger sight radius, gets higher velocities with the same ammunition and has what many consider to be a more reliable gas system than the m4.
Actually a power is something granted, a right is something inherent. Rights are assured by the constitution but not granted. Whereas powers are granted. Without the constitution you still have a right to free speech, own firearms, due process. Without the constitution the government does not have the power to tax you.
Australia already had very strict gun control laws at the time of the port arthur massacre. And no british gun crime stats dont include toy guns where are you getting that made up information from? I can believe it includes air guns considering at the time of the second ammendment's writing one of the the most deadly guns out there was an air gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Are you referring to Britain where they've had several massacres and gun crime has doubled over the past decade since they effectively banned guns? The US where we had one of the worst massacres in the middle of the Assault weapon ban? or Australia where one of their worst massacres ever was at the height of their gun control laws and included 35 deaths and 21 injuries?
A woman who fights back gains an 86% chance of avoiding the rape and incurs little chance of additional injury. Most injuries occur before the woman starts fighting back. Women using knives or guns in self defense were raped less than 1% of the time. (Kleck and Sayles, 1990)
(from http://www.cjselfdefense.com/statistics.shtml Yeah defending yourself sounds like a horrible idea, only 86% chance of coming out ahead vs just laying there and taking it eh? bring a gun and it goes up to 99% chance of coming out ahead.
I base it on that the majority of the reported cases involving adolescent children defending themselves with guns involve the adolescent children coming out on top.
Actually that was just google result #1, there were 5 more that i saw right off the bat of instances of young children thwarting home invasions thanks to guns. The trick is the child didn't threaten the violent criminal, they just pulled the trigger as soon as they had a shot. The best part is it wasn't fatal for anyone, lives were saved thanks to a gun!
Unfortunately due to the abuse of that system by this paper you may not be able to do that much longer. http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-senator-ball-issues-statement-journal-news-gun-permit-map-and-introduces It is a shame that the information was abused in such a way but you may not be able to easily obtain it (at least in ny) for much longer.
If neither the aggressor nor the intended victim has a gun, then the attack and the defence depend, as you say, on their physical characteristics. If the aggressor is stronger, they can commit a crime with near-impunity. If the defender is stronger, they can defend themselves successfully.
You do understand that the aggressor is not going to choose to initiate an attack on someone who is physically stronger than them right? They will choose to rob someone who is at a disadvantage, if that person then turns out to have a gun it then tips the scales back in favor of balance. It gets even worse for the aggressor because anyone within gunshot range will hear it and likely look over to see what is going on thus providing more opportunities for the aggressor to be stopped even if they open with shooting. The ideal situation is to have it so the aggressor does not know who is in possession of a firearm and thus is unable to choose suitable targets and is forced to choose a more honest method of stealing, like banking.
This ain't The Hobbit, those thugs aren't going to turn to stone the moment the sun rises. You've pulled a gun on them and escalated the situation. You've basically ensured that at least one person dies, and it's probably going to be you. Congratulations on turning a bad situation even worse.
I think if a 12-year old girl can manage to come out alive from a home invasion thanks to a gun I certainly can.
I think guns should be registered because it is the first step to accountability. Where do you think illegal guns come from?
I thought illegal guns came from the atf... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
Don't forget to outlaw sheet metal brakes, tin snips, bandsaws and anything else that can be used to make high capacity magazines (protip, ammo clips only come in 10 rounds for the ar-15 so there are no high or low capacity clips). I would suspect most major criminal operations don't bother making their own high capacity magazines however, it's simpler to buy or steal them from militaries around the world. So don't forget to limit our own military guys to 10 round magazines as well.
Buckshot is horrible about over penetration, it'll go through 3 layers of Sheetrock and do nothing but spread out it's pattern. 55 grain full metal jacket boat tail rounds in .223 caliber on the other hand fragment beautifully. That's why people serious about defending their home would prefer to use an assault rifle vs a shotgun.
The military usually takes advantage of those larger magazines for suppressive fire. Your goal with suppressive fire isn't to kill your target but rather to keep your targets head down long enough for you to do what you need to do.