its a forbes.com/sites/ page, ie, a blog, though they don't call it that. forbes.com is notorious for giving anyone a voice under/sites/ Sometimes sane, frequently not. But being under forbes they also get a little bit of authority that they don't necessarily qualify for.
It's misleading because not all gun owners are mentally ill, mostly just the ones you see on TV.
This is true. It's also misleading because most of homicide with a firearm also don't involve mental illness. Mental illness, which is generally an unresolved problem in this nation outside of the gun debate, does however make a convenient scapegoat to prevent any action on gun control.
Truth is both problems need solving, and using one to stall the other is despicable.
the difference is the attacks in France are an outlier. an Aberration. a rare occurrence. That's the primary reason it was so shocking, particularly within France.
In the US those attacks would just be another regular Wednesday night. More than 3000 people have died in the US to firearm violence since the Paris attacks.
Because guns are responsible for 2/3 of all homicides, easy to obtain, more reliably fatal than pretty much any other method of homicide, and because nearly every other civilized nation on Earth has shown that it's a fixable problem.
these initiatives all operate through existing mandates for existing government agencies and those agencies' jurisdictions.
they are neither unfunded, no 'rule by decree'.
in fact, most of the things Obama stated were things that Republicans used to support...until Obama supported it too.
According to reporting by the Huffington Post, in January 2013 Ryan called closing the so-called gun-show loophole in background checks "reasonable" and "obvious."
In fact, Ryan told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he recalled thinking the loophole was a problem when he first arrived in Congress. "There is a loophole here. We should address that," Ryan told the board in the 2013 interview.
A requirement almost totally ignored by individuals who only sell online or at gun shows, not operating under business license or without a store front, yet clearly in the business of selling guns.
some states do require checks at gun shows, or for internet sales, or other instances outside of the normal place of business, ie gun store. however its not a national standard.
So for someone who complains of comparing things miles apart, you sure do it a lot yourself.
Besides, you're drawing an imaginary nonsense distinction where there isn't one. It's an engineering problem, no more.
Just because it's not 100% solved yet doesn't mean it will never be solved. Firearms themselves are no where near 100% reliability.
They require care and maintenance, but even with it, sometimes things go wrong. You get a jam, a misfire, what have you. Any sort smart tech would logically be no different, and would also require regular maintenance.
Now engineers aren't stupid either. Any sort of electronics would need to be fairly robust, able to withstand physical shock. That's why some of the folks involved are folks with backgrounds in ruggedized electronics, such as the military uses.
No, that is the most dangerous myth about the 2nd Amendment. It was never about being able to stop a rogue government.
The citizenry would find a way to do with with or without hte 2nd Amendment (indeed, with the overwhelmingly conservative (and anti-government) nature of the majority of military and police, just who the flying fuck do you think a rogue government is going to get to enforce its will???)
Reality is the 2nd amendment is about the ability of the militia to exist and be capable of fulfilling its mission of assisting in national defense. The early nation did not have sufficient army to provide for the defense. the idea being that they would be reinforced with citizen militia. The army then provides the knowledge and experience, and heavy weapon such as cannon, and the militia provides the bodies. The army lacked the equipment to supply every militia though, so it was necessary for the militia to be able to supply its own arms.
Today, with the militia now being hte National Guard, and the National Guard having no trouble supplying its members with gear, its safe to say needs for providing for the national defense have changed.
If Gun Massacres Are the Price of Liberty, We Need to Reconsider What Liberty Means.
If constant gun massacres are an inevitable result of American liberty—if we cannot be truly free without letting every madman, abuser, and hothead with a grudge get guns, if we cannot send our children to school without fearing they may be slaughtered in a hail of bullets—we need to reconsider what liberty truly means.
And you should also not pretend that we dont regularly restrict or limit the rights in the constitution over various greater public interests.
Freedom of speech has its limits: cant yell fire in the movie theater. So does religion: you dont get to impose your religion on others even if its what your religious expression or observance calls for Assembly: cant block public streets, or you must get a permit to do so
So dont pretend that the 2nd Amendment is any different, or any more sacred and inviolate than the others. There are times and places to limit it. By imposing background checks, on ALL sales. By requiring training to prove your anret incompetent and a threat to others. By requiring proper storage, so that unauthorized persons, such as children, get access.
they either figure something that works, or they dont. (and in fact there are already a couple smart guns that do work reliably, they just dont get sold here because certain segments of the gun rights crowd have repeatedly made death threats again the makers and sellers......the irony kills me)
they said the same thing about semiauto firearms 100+ years ago. what happened? they worked on the engineering until now no one even questions their reliability, and semiautos are the preferred weapon type for a lot of folks.
There is no war against Islam except in the fantasies of extremists who wish it to be true. That means both extremists seeking to harm our country, and extremists like you seeking to harm an entire religion.
You dishonor yourself, the thousands who died that day, the first responders who worked so tirelessly to save the survivors, and the countless American citizens who answered the call to serve their nation following the attacks. First responders like Police Cadet Mohammed Salman Hamdani, who died digging though the rubble. Or the 6000+ Muslim veterans who have served in the US Armed Forces since 9/11, some of whom I've had the pleasure to serve with, and some of whom died in that service.
Frankly you're just the other side of the same terrorist coin. You and the others like you.
Slashdot Mirror
not even Forbes.
its a forbes.com/sites/ page, ie, a blog, though they don't call it that. /sites/
forbes.com is notorious for giving anyone a voice under
Sometimes sane, frequently not.
But being under forbes they also get a little bit of authority that they don't necessarily qualify for.
First thing I thought of was "dammit, the arcologys are already on their way".
It's misleading because not all gun owners are mentally ill, mostly just the ones you see on TV.
This is true.
It's also misleading because most of homicide with a firearm also don't involve mental illness.
Mental illness, which is generally an unresolved problem in this nation outside of the gun debate, does however make a convenient scapegoat to prevent any action on gun control.
Truth is both problems need solving, and using one to stall the other is despicable.
( http://www.salon.com/2015/06/1... )
the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited, absolute right any more than does the First Amendment.
the difference is the attacks in France are an outlier.
an Aberration.
a rare occurrence.
That's the primary reason it was so shocking, particularly within France.
In the US those attacks would just be another regular Wednesday night.
More than 3000 people have died in the US to firearm violence since the Paris attacks.
Yeah, if only those first graders in Newtown had been armed....
Because guns are responsible for 2/3 of all homicides, easy to obtain, more reliably fatal than pretty much any other method of homicide, and because nearly every other civilized nation on Earth has shown that it's a fixable problem .
The Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited, absolute right any more than does the First Amendment.
no.
as usual you're wrong and ignorant.
these initiatives all operate through existing mandates for existing government agencies and those agencies' jurisdictions.
they are neither unfunded, no 'rule by decree'.
in fact, most of the things Obama stated were things that Republicans used to support...until Obama supported it too.
According to reporting by the Huffington Post, in January 2013 Ryan called closing the so-called gun-show loophole in background checks "reasonable" and "obvious."
In fact, Ryan told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he recalled thinking the loophole was a problem when he first arrived in Congress. "There is a loophole here. We should address that," Ryan told the board in the 2013 interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/...
As usual, they'd self-asphyxiate out of spite if Obama declared Oxygen important.
Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.
That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.
Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.
In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever
6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.
In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.
And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.
Funny how you types always leave that out.
And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
A requirement almost totally ignored by individuals who only sell online or at gun shows, not operating under business license or without a store front, yet clearly in the business of selling guns.
some states do require checks at gun shows, or for internet sales, or other instances outside of the normal place of business, ie gun store.
however its not a national standard.
Are you scared of all lil children that make threats they can't back up?
So for someone who complains of comparing things miles apart, you sure do it a lot yourself.
Besides, you're drawing an imaginary nonsense distinction where there isn't one.
It's an engineering problem, no more.
Just because it's not 100% solved yet doesn't mean it will never be solved.
Firearms themselves are no where near 100% reliability.
They require care and maintenance, but even with it, sometimes things go wrong.
You get a jam, a misfire, what have you.
Any sort smart tech would logically be no different, and would also require regular maintenance.
Now engineers aren't stupid either. Any sort of electronics would need to be fairly robust, able to withstand physical shock. That's why some of the folks involved are folks with backgrounds in ruggedized electronics, such as the military uses.
I see the gun nuts have mod points today, modding every rational person down.
now that's just an absolutely idiotic argument
We have sniffer/detector craft for just this reason.
I wait until we hear confirmation before believing anything NK says.
No, that is the most dangerous myth about the 2nd Amendment.
It was never about being able to stop a rogue government.
The citizenry would find a way to do with with or without hte 2nd Amendment (indeed, with the overwhelmingly conservative (and anti-government) nature of the majority of military and police, just who the flying fuck do you think a rogue government is going to get to enforce its will???)
Reality is the 2nd amendment is about the ability of the militia to exist and be capable of fulfilling its mission of assisting in national defense.
The early nation did not have sufficient army to provide for the defense. the idea being that they would be reinforced with citizen militia.
The army then provides the knowledge and experience, and heavy weapon such as cannon, and the militia provides the bodies.
The army lacked the equipment to supply every militia though, so it was necessary for the militia to be able to supply its own arms.
Today, with the militia now being hte National Guard, and the National Guard having no trouble supplying its members with gear, its safe to say needs for providing for the national defense have changed.
Some light reading to correct your ignorance:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
If Gun Massacres Are the Price of Liberty, We Need to Reconsider What Liberty Means.
If constant gun massacres are an inevitable result of American liberty—if we cannot be truly free without letting every madman, abuser, and hothead with a grudge get guns, if we cannot send our children to school without fearing they may be slaughtered in a hail of bullets—we need to reconsider what liberty truly means.
And you should also not pretend that we dont regularly restrict or limit the rights in the constitution over various greater public interests.
Freedom of speech has its limits: cant yell fire in the movie theater.
So does religion: you dont get to impose your religion on others even if its what your religious expression or observance calls for
Assembly: cant block public streets, or you must get a permit to do so
So dont pretend that the 2nd Amendment is any different, or any more sacred and inviolate than the others. There are times and places to limit it. By imposing background checks, on ALL sales. By requiring training to prove your anret incompetent and a threat to others. By requiring proper storage, so that unauthorized persons, such as children, get access.
I like Bill, and Bill may like the guy, but that doesnt mean the guy has drawn a valid conclusion.
And Bill doesn't always make the best choices.
Reality misses you
exactly.
they either figure something that works, or they dont.
(and in fact there are already a couple smart guns that do work reliably, they just dont get sold here because certain segments of the gun rights crowd have repeatedly made death threats again the makers and sellers......the irony kills me)
they said the same thing about semiauto firearms 100+ years ago.
what happened?
they worked on the engineering until now no one even questions their reliability, and semiautos are the preferred weapon type for a lot of folks.
you really have no clue what you're talking about.
why are people modding the author of the submission as well the story 'troll' ?
stupid mods.
There is no war against Islam except in the fantasies of extremists who wish it to be true.
That means both extremists seeking to harm our country, and extremists like you seeking to harm an entire religion.
You dishonor yourself, the thousands who died that day, the first responders who worked so tirelessly to save the survivors, and the countless American citizens who answered the call to serve their nation following the attacks. First responders like Police Cadet Mohammed Salman Hamdani, who died digging though the rubble. Or the 6000+ Muslim veterans who have served in the US Armed Forces since 9/11, some of whom I've had the pleasure to serve with, and some of whom died in that service.
Frankly you're just the other side of the same terrorist coin.
You and the others like you.