"Granted the chance of a fatal injury is higher with a firearm"
See, I'm confused because you managed to type out this phrase, but then the rest of your post is written as if you didn't understand this.
Yes, one person might kill another person with a toothpick or also with a death star -- but that's totally irrelevant, because toothpicks aren't like death stars, and we need to draw a line somewhere between toothpicks and death stars. Personally, I draw the line at "rifles, revolvers", which is inside the range of "guns" but toward the bottom of it.
False. Today we enjoy effective grenade control in the United States. How many of those one-a-week mass shooters used grenades in your memory? Zero. Do you think that's because criminals are trying to obey the law? No, it's because they have no choice but to obey the law, because we just don't allow grenades to circulate widely in the population.
Every day that you don't read about a mass murder rolling a couple grenades into a kindergarten, take a moment to realize that arms bans can work.
Weird how you didn't quote this part of the article:
It should also be noted that the first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns.
The drop in crime is absolutely correlated to NOT having more concealed weapons in the population, according to YOUR SOURCE.
How does it feel to have your beliefs crushed by facts? Also, how does it feel to not be able to read news articles and use them to support your argument?
"We need to encourage responsible gun ownership and punish irresponsible gun ownership"
I hear this, and then whenever an actual policy is proposed, suddenly gun owners don't really want to encourage responsibility after all.
I suggest gun insurance. If your gun is used in a crime, your insurance pays out, no matter who used it.
Now, suddenly gun owners have a positive responsibility to keep their guns away from criminals, and not to be criminals. People who don't lock up guns, and the guns get stolen, their insurance rates would increase. People who pretend that guns are stolen, but really are selling them on the black market, would see their rates increate. People with dirty backgrounds would pay more. Meanwhile, the large majority of gun owners would have extremely low rates because almost all guns are never used in a crime. Private insurers would use all available information to set rates and divide people into risk categories. All uninsured guns would be de-facto contraband.
Is anybody calling for medication or alcohol control?
Yes, of course. We have all kinds of medication and alcohol controls.
Did you know that all medication and alcohol sales must be performed by licensed companies, and private people are prohibited from selling them to one another? Huh.
Did you know that you have to show your ID to buy alcohol, even at "alcohol shows", which don't even exist because seriously how ridiculous would that be? Huh.
Did you know that we have widespread campaigns to repossess and destroy medications, and yet nobody runs around protesting those with histrionics? Huh.
Let me say, though, that there is a difference: the Constitution doesn't give us an absolute uninfringeable right to tipple, but it does give every single person an uninfringeable right to build, buy, keep, and carry any weapon, with no restrictions, not even reasonable restrictions. Well, that's how I read it anyway (courts sometimes wave their hands and pretend the text allows infringements), and that's why I think it's ridiculous and we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not holding my breath though.
This is just another non-evidence-based appeal for gun control
The rest of what you said sounded reasonable, but this is why I know you are a nutter. Evidence was presented to you and your cognitive dissonance was so strong that you had to pretend not to see it, or pretend it wasn't evidence.
Just reply to this message and say: "no facts can possibly change my mind about this issue, because when I see facts, I dismiss them as non-evidence".
Huh. That's a weird statement to make considering the obvious and overwhelming improvement to air quality since big government started regulating car (and other) emissions, and in the case of one exception which was discovered after a handful of years.
You know that nobody expects laws to be 100% effective right? I can't even think of a law that is 100% effective.
I have a advanced-consumer-level wifi router and I put Tomato on it long ago. Is that what they are talking about? What kind of rule can prevent you from installing software on computers you own? It seems like a violation of something fundamental to me.
You mean over-the-air channels? Yeah we had an antenna for those, but they don't cost money. Before I understood the scam I thought the whole point of paying for cable channels was that they didn't have ads. Now I understand that the point is fuck you, pay us.
Not everywhere. In France where I visited the rule is "yield to the right". It's like an implied four-way yield but it forces drivers to slow way down at every single intersection to see around the corner and check for cars to the right. All that instead of just telling two of the ways to yield.
I lived in Boston for a couple years. A few weeks before I moved out I was driving on a surface street and the car in front of me signaled his upcoming turn. I swear this is true; in my brain, my inner monologue went like this:
"What the hell is that weird flashing orange light on that car?" "Is it a hazard light, but the other bulb is burned out?" "Maybe I should slow down, something could be seriously wrong." "You idiot, that's a turn signal." "Oh, gosh, you're right. I haven't seen one of those in a long time."
That only took a second or two to process, but I was genuinely surprised.
Elsewhere in the country where I've lived, however, I find turn signals to be used mostly consistently. Here in Madison drivers are very good about them. I think it's cultural and geographically heterogeneous.
"And here, travelling more than 15kmph under the speed limit is ticketable too."
Yeah, technically that can possibly happen in the United States but it is very rare. And the problem is that speed limits themselves are stupid low, so if the highway says 55 MPH then a person would have to be going 40 on a damn highway where everyone else is going 85 to get a ticket. The result is that we have these few drivers who are creating very unsafe highway conditions but never get ticketed for it.
What I want is simply enforcement of the rule "slower traffic keep right". That's enough for me. No matter what speed you are going -- under at or over the limit, whatever it doesn't matter -- if the lane to your right is empty or moving faster than you then you should get a ticket.
Wait, are you claiming to live in a place where school speed zones ("she"?) have the ability to be deactivated, and yet you must obey the lower limit even when it is deactivated? Do I have that right?
What, then, does it mean for the zone to be "deactivated" in your country?
Here in the USA, our signs say "25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT" or "25 MPH WHEN LIGHT FLASHING". If children aren't present, or the light isn't flashing, then the limit does no apply. People who drive slowly through those zones anyway are considered unencumbered assbags.
I'd like to take the opportunity to tangentially ask everybody to stop treating escalators like a fucking amusement ride. They are moving stairs, okay, not the god damned Tea Cups. Move your fat stubby legs just like you do on stairs, and the machine will help you get there, but unless you're actually disabled (in which case stand to the fucking right so people can pass you on the left) then you should keep climbing, don't stop.
Slashdot Mirror
"Granted the chance of a fatal injury is higher with a firearm"
See, I'm confused because you managed to type out this phrase, but then the rest of your post is written as if you didn't understand this.
Yes, one person might kill another person with a toothpick or also with a death star -- but that's totally irrelevant, because toothpicks aren't like death stars, and we need to draw a line somewhere between toothpicks and death stars. Personally, I draw the line at "rifles, revolvers", which is inside the range of "guns" but toward the bottom of it.
The ban all the never works.
False. Today we enjoy effective grenade control in the United States. How many of those one-a-week mass shooters used grenades in your memory? Zero. Do you think that's because criminals are trying to obey the law? No, it's because they have no choice but to obey the law, because we just don't allow grenades to circulate widely in the population.
Every day that you don't read about a mass murder rolling a couple grenades into a kindergarten, take a moment to realize that arms bans can work.
Weird how you didn't quote this part of the article:
It should also be noted that the first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns.
The drop in crime is absolutely correlated to NOT having more concealed weapons in the population, according to YOUR SOURCE.
How does it feel to have your beliefs crushed by facts? Also, how does it feel to not be able to read news articles and use them to support your argument?
"We need to encourage responsible gun ownership and punish irresponsible gun ownership"
I hear this, and then whenever an actual policy is proposed, suddenly gun owners don't really want to encourage responsibility after all.
I suggest gun insurance. If your gun is used in a crime, your insurance pays out, no matter who used it.
Now, suddenly gun owners have a positive responsibility to keep their guns away from criminals, and not to be criminals. People who don't lock up guns, and the guns get stolen, their insurance rates would increase. People who pretend that guns are stolen, but really are selling them on the black market, would see their rates increate. People with dirty backgrounds would pay more. Meanwhile, the large majority of gun owners would have extremely low rates because almost all guns are never used in a crime. Private insurers would use all available information to set rates and divide people into risk categories. All uninsured guns would be de-facto contraband.
Is anybody calling for medication or alcohol control?
Yes, of course. We have all kinds of medication and alcohol controls.
Did you know that all medication and alcohol sales must be performed by licensed companies, and private people are prohibited from selling them to one another? Huh.
Did you know that you have to show your ID to buy alcohol, even at "alcohol shows", which don't even exist because seriously how ridiculous would that be? Huh.
Did you know that we have widespread campaigns to repossess and destroy medications, and yet nobody runs around protesting those with histrionics? Huh.
Let me say, though, that there is a difference: the Constitution doesn't give us an absolute uninfringeable right to tipple, but it does give every single person an uninfringeable right to build, buy, keep, and carry any weapon, with no restrictions, not even reasonable restrictions. Well, that's how I read it anyway (courts sometimes wave their hands and pretend the text allows infringements), and that's why I think it's ridiculous and we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not holding my breath though.
This is just another non-evidence-based appeal for gun control
The rest of what you said sounded reasonable, but this is why I know you are a nutter. Evidence was presented to you and your cognitive dissonance was so strong that you had to pretend not to see it, or pretend it wasn't evidence.
Just reply to this message and say: "no facts can possibly change my mind about this issue, because when I see facts, I dismiss them as non-evidence".
Maybe we should wait to consider that until we have an alternative.
"Boo hoo. A company insists on considering product safety. I'm butthurt about it. Nanny freedom patriot something something profit."
I know you are lying, because I live in America, and there are no companies here.
The new expansion pack for Skylines has bike lanes.
"Being an asshole and personally attacking the submitter doesn't help improve code."
Is this the crux of your argument? What if being an asshole and personally attacking the submitter DID improve the code? Then would you support it?
You must not remember the Hellmouth series, n00b.
Go somewhere else if you don't like the content.
Huh. That's a weird statement to make considering the obvious and overwhelming improvement to air quality since big government started regulating car (and other) emissions, and in the case of one exception which was discovered after a handful of years.
You know that nobody expects laws to be 100% effective right? I can't even think of a law that is 100% effective.
The 'slight difference' is 40x. It might be 40x of a small amount, but still.
My guess is that a judge would be sympathetic to the side-street scenario, but the school holiday scenario would depend on the wording of the law.
I have a advanced-consumer-level wifi router and I put Tomato on it long ago. Is that what they are talking about? What kind of rule can prevent you from installing software on computers you own? It seems like a violation of something fundamental to me.
You mean over-the-air channels? Yeah we had an antenna for those, but they don't cost money. Before I understood the scam I thought the whole point of paying for cable channels was that they didn't have ads. Now I understand that the point is fuck you, pay us.
Interesting, thank you. Here's more information.
Not everywhere. In France where I visited the rule is "yield to the right". It's like an implied four-way yield but it forces drivers to slow way down at every single intersection to see around the corner and check for cars to the right. All that instead of just telling two of the ways to yield.
I lived in Boston for a couple years. A few weeks before I moved out I was driving on a surface street and the car in front of me signaled his upcoming turn. I swear this is true; in my brain, my inner monologue went like this:
"What the hell is that weird flashing orange light on that car?"
"Is it a hazard light, but the other bulb is burned out?"
"Maybe I should slow down, something could be seriously wrong."
"You idiot, that's a turn signal."
"Oh, gosh, you're right. I haven't seen one of those in a long time."
That only took a second or two to process, but I was genuinely surprised.
Elsewhere in the country where I've lived, however, I find turn signals to be used mostly consistently. Here in Madison drivers are very good about them. I think it's cultural and geographically heterogeneous.
"Oh, excuse me sir, could we all get past please?"
"And here, travelling more than 15kmph under the speed limit is ticketable too."
Yeah, technically that can possibly happen in the United States but it is very rare. And the problem is that speed limits themselves are stupid low, so if the highway says 55 MPH then a person would have to be going 40 on a damn highway where everyone else is going 85 to get a ticket. The result is that we have these few drivers who are creating very unsafe highway conditions but never get ticketed for it.
What I want is simply enforcement of the rule "slower traffic keep right". That's enough for me. No matter what speed you are going -- under at or over the limit, whatever it doesn't matter -- if the lane to your right is empty or moving faster than you then you should get a ticket.
Wait, are you claiming to live in a place where school speed zones ("she"?) have the ability to be deactivated, and yet you must obey the lower limit even when it is deactivated? Do I have that right?
What, then, does it mean for the zone to be "deactivated" in your country?
Here in the USA, our signs say "25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT" or "25 MPH WHEN LIGHT FLASHING". If children aren't present, or the light isn't flashing, then the limit does no apply. People who drive slowly through those zones anyway are considered unencumbered assbags.
"you are one of those who can not bear to drive slowly behind another car when it is necessary"
You should re-read his comment then reply honestly.
His scenario is when you can not bear to drive slowly behind another car when it is unnecessary.
I'd like to take the opportunity to tangentially ask everybody to stop treating escalators like a fucking amusement ride. They are moving stairs, okay, not the god damned Tea Cups. Move your fat stubby legs just like you do on stairs, and the machine will help you get there, but unless you're actually disabled (in which case stand to the fucking right so people can pass you on the left) then you should keep climbing, don't stop.