I was in a similar program when I was in my early teens. We picked up Java Tanks on our own, we heard about it after our PC Science teacher hooked us on Bolo after blowing through our typing and word processing classes.
You'd be surprised how fast a 12-14 year old kid could pick up on C, Java, TCL/TK (my first programming language), etc..
Which itself is a loss for the citizens who chose to not carry weapons. The criminals are carrying weapons why? Because there are other people carrying weapons.
So then the people that they rob that happen to be unarmed are non-consequential? I don't even need to remind everybody that almost universally, the biggest fear of a criminal preying on citizens is that they have a gun. What needs to be separated from the chaff is the fact that we're not concerned about criminal on criminal violence here, it shouldn't be taken into consideration (our worries shouldn't be about criminals, it should be about their victims). When a criminal is preying on CIVILIANS, his primary source of power is his ability to visit violence upon another. In countries like the UK, it means the strong rule. Because of the lack of easy to use yet deadly weapons, the big and strong have the upper hand unless they run into somebody with extensive martial arts training (again, frowned upon severely in the UK, people with such have to be registered and almost universally face charges no matter who initiated the violence). In countries like the US, it means they're rolling their dice save for a few areas where such tools are again illegal. Let's say the criminal has a gun, well that's not much different than just being big and strong in a place where guns are illegal. Either way they have the superior hand, unless their victim is packing a gun too. There's a double edged sword here, it DOES mean that far more people have an easier way to put themselves in such a situation so as to "force" someone to give them money or valuables. On the other hand, if everyone else can too, it's not that much of an advantage any more. This is more or less proven by the distribution of domestic violence in this country (meaning muggings, robberies, break-in robbery and murder, rape) is UNIVERSALLY higher in the parts that have draconian gun laws. D.C., NYC, LA, etc. are great examples. What has to be focused on is criminal on civilian, because that's all I care about. Gang shootings shouldn't be taken into too much consideration, although it should be noted that the rate of innocent death during gang shootings is much less in areas that don't restrict handguns and much much less in areas that have Shall-Issue CCW legislation.
I have fired plenty of guns. I happen to be a gun owner, as well. However I also happen to oppose guns as tools of self-defense. I have never met a person who honestly resolved a problem with another person by using a gun.
You probably know more people that carry every day than you think. Unless you're in California or New York or some state that does not as of yet have CCW legislation. Right now there are almost 35 states with Shall-Issue CCW legislation (which means you will be given a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so long as you don't have a criminal record and get the proper training, without being required to give a reason to carry such as having a restraining order or some such). The number CCW licenses currently valid is getting pretty high, I'd say that nation wide 1/30 people has a gun on them at all times. That's a conservative estimate. That number has increased per capita at almost an exponential rate since the early nineties. I don't see the crime rate going up. I'm one of these people, and I can tell you of 3 different situations that I've resolved satisfactorily (no injured, no dead, and me with all my money), without even having to draw my weapon. All I have to do is let them know it's there, and they know instantly that I'm not easy prey and RUN as fast as they can. Two of those instances were gang bangers alluding to having a gun and demanding money(they're getting smarter, showing me the gun is instant armed robbery, they fish for the strong-arm first in case they get caught), my first reaction was to put my hand on and reveal my holstered M1911, I couldn't even draw the weapon before they were 20 yards in the opposite direction leaving a dust trail. One of them almost knocked all his teeth ou
Only probable if you believe that the attacker's intent is to cause physical harm or death
It doesn't matter what the attacker's intent is. It matters what is perceived by the victim. If you point an airsoft pistol that you modified to look extremely realistic at me and demand money, I'm going to get within arms reach in a ploy that looks like I'm giving you my money, swat it away and put 2 in your chest with the.45 ACP pistol on my hip. I don't know that the gun isn't real, I just know it's a gun. Further more, I don't know if you intend on letting me live or shooting me because I saw your face. Same goes with knives, rubber or not, your intent is to make me fear for my life and give you my money. Well done, you made me fear for my life, except I'm the kinda guy who eliminates threats to my life as opposed to just hoping to god they'll go away.
It needs to be reiterated and understood that it DOES NOT matter what the attacker's intent is. We aren't psychic, all we know is that we are being attacked, and we don't know when they'll stop attacking. Whether it's when we're down and they have what they want, or until we're dead.
If you start arming everyone then the end result with the criminal populace is that they will be better armed. You need to look at what portion of crimes against the elderly are committed with weapons (and included violence from the perpetrator), and then evaluate if putting a weapon in the hands of the victim really would have changed the situation.
What is the criminal populace going to be armed with? RPG's? Unless you honestly think we're going to have roving gangs of tank-riding thugs, that argument holds no water. This whole notion that letting law-abiding citizens be law-abiding citizens (there are 270 MILLION guns in the hands of US Civilians, legally owned, don't forget that it is still legal to buy guns) results in criminals being even worse is bullshit. We can already buy guns, we have ALOT of them. Criminals are using the same types of guns that law-abiding citizens have. Trying to set up a premise that citizens following the LAW enables criminals or makes them worse is extremely dangerous and incredibly short sighted. There is absolutely no evidence to support it.
Then how hard would it be for the attacker to overpower the victim and take it from them anyways? At which point the criminal may now have two weapons, as they were already carrying one in anticipation of an armed victim.
Hypothetical situation that could be applied to letting police officers, court officers, and military carry guns as well. Straw man argument. The point of a firearm is that it takes extremely little effort to use. It does take training to use effectively as an offensive weapon past 10 feet or so, but very little to use defensively period. All I have to do is squeeze my trigger finger. This situation that you posit is exactly the kind of encounter this weapon is designed for, and offers great advantage to those that are easily overpowered.
If you're going to use hypothetical situations as reasons to outlaw things, you might as well make a laundry list of EVERYTHING that could possibly be used to kill someone, and ban it. Pencils, Pens, Shoelaces, I can give you a hypothetical situation in which any household or personal item you can name can be used to kill someone. Maybe if you had any experience with weapons or how to use them, you'd know more realistic litmus tests to use as a base to define something as too dangerous. Do us all a favor and take a CCW class, fire a gun, then judge.
And that is the point of this being offered as a medical device. The doctor authorizing it's allocation would probably have a pretty good grasp of the user's mental capacity and ability to deal with people.
Being in the military AT ALL put him in touch with armed conflicts, and how they play out. He knows more about that subject than you, gauranteed, how many armed conflicts have you participated in?
Where as, on the opposite side of the coin, the UK has the highest rate of domestic violence of an industrial country. Rape, battery, robbery and vandalism rates in the UK are MUCH higher than the US on a per capita basis. Comparing the US gun death rates to Europe doesn't prove a damn thing, the US has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world. The UK? France? Italy? They have practically NO private gun ownership. No shit the US is gonna have the highest rate of gun deaths.
As I said before, check out the rape rates, domestic violence rates, and property crime rates for all those countries compared to the US. The UK is the best example, yeah sure they have 1/10th of our murder rates, but their women aren't nearly as safe and their property is more likely to get vandalized or stolen. Before you start fretting over drug dealers shooting eachother, ask yourself if you want to tell the thousands of women that get raped as a result of not having a gun at home to defend themselves that their rape was worth it so that Jamal the Drug Dealer doesn't get shot this year.
Now check out the rape rate, domestic violence rate, and property crimes rate on a per capita basis. The US's rates for all the above are lower. Yeah sure we've got alot of drug dealers shooting eachother, but our women are safer and property generally stays in good condition.
In addition, soldiers are trained not to think, they're trained to follow orders.
Not so. Soldiers are trained to defend their country from threats both foreign and domestic. They're trained to accomplish the tasks set forth by their superiors so long as they're legal. The UCMJ doesn't allow for the slaughter of civilians. A Colonel orders the slaughter of a village, it's not going to get done.
Marines too, a Colonel orders the slaughter of a village, not only does it not get done, the Colonel gets arrested sent for a court martial.
You go ahead and do so. Then look at the OVERALL crime rate in other areas. Countries like the UK are far higher in regards of rape, robbery, home invasion and domestic violence. Be sure to look at current numbers, the BCS (UK) numbers keep getting higher and higher as they fuck with the books.
Your point doesn't prove anything. Of course GUN RELATED DEATHS are going to be higher in states with higher gun ownership. Those statistics, however, don't make the distinction between a suicide, a man killed in self defense, or a man killed in cold blood. Crime rate as a whole is a better litmus test than gun related deaths, because the numbers you provided don't tell you anything about the crime rate.
The FBI Crime Statistics Report only includes deaths for which there was a conviction or for an unsolved death. People acquitted don't count towards the murder rate (they didn't commit murder, it was justifiable homicide). In the end, while those states mentioned have a higher gun related death rate, they have a lower crime rate than their draconic cousins California and New York.
We're talking about criminal offense, not death in general. Dropping a guy for trying to hurt or maim you or your family isn't a crime in most states.
I still don't see numbers. Just a little over 6,000 people die a year in gun related violence. I know that the rate of gun use in non-violent apprehension of criminals, defense of home, dispersion of riots, shooting of dangerous animals, and the warding off of robberies is much higher than that.
Again, where are your numbers to back up your claims.
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership. Take for instance our current crime rate. It's on a low plateau, crime has been staying at a pretty constant low for years now. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been increasing significantly. The FBI Crime Statistics Report (2006, still waiting on the next one as they're done bi-annually) showed that for every single state that enacted a Shall-Issue Concealed Carry statute, crime rates have dropped. Every single one, no fliers, no flukes, every single one. I do believe the number is 31 states that have enacted one so far. For a great majority of those states, you can observe the drop starting in the year that the statute took effect. Think like a criminal for a second. You don't care what the law says. You're gonna find a gun one way or another. Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven. You can walk up to someone, pull out your gun, and feel safe in the fact that the people you're robbing are law abiding citizens, and that it is illegal for them to use force against you. It's a win-win situation for criminals. They have no intent on abiding the law, and everyone with wallets to snatch are mandated to sit there and be good little victims.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do. Now that well off looking guy walking with his girlfriend down the street isn't so appealing. He might have a gun, too. Criminals are predators, predators don't oft go after prey that could easily kill them unless they're completely desperate. The math changes quite a bit when pointing a gun at someone could get you killed. Most of them start second guessing their decision, and a fair number decide that maybe it's not a good idea after all. Having a weapon that makes you a badass in front of the girls and gives you a sense of entitlement doesn't do that as much when everyone else has one too. To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
Actually it's not as difficult as you think to change up gears. Again, teeth, diameter, pitch. (Pitch and Diameter are directly related, but they're not necessarily proportional). In the long run, you want the pitch to be equal. In the short run, you're counting teeth. 4:1 means on the power side, you've 24 teeth, 6 on the transmission side. Power side is always on the left of the inequality. You want to go easy on your shafts? Try 1:4, 12 teeth on the power side, 48 on the transmission side. Racing a dragster? You want the ratio closer to 1:1. In the end, the pitch needs to match up, that's it. There are 1 pitch 12 tooth spur gears and 80 pitch 12 tooth spur gears. The smaller the pitch, the smaller the gear, but also the more susceptible to wear.
The thing you want to keep in mind here is the notion of prototyping. The first run of anything is the most expensive. Art is always a first run. It's going to be a little pricey, yeah. What you're paying for however (again, get a machinery handbook, $115 but it's the best thing that'll ever happen to you) is the assurance that you're going to get a good fit that will NEVER wear out.
Let's say you need a couple of pinions and a rack, and 2 or 3 spurs. $75-$100. That's it. Just money. No fighting with anything to get it to fit, not hang ups or hard spots in the action of your art, just money for guaranteed operation. After you've had to hand file a 40 pitch gear to get it to work with the rest of an assembly because you found it and figured it would work, you'd much rather spend that $100.
Now, as for mounting. There are 2 options. One is a set screw. The other is a key. The second option you can actually do at home for no other expense than an arbor press ($60) and some broaches ($20-$30). Those are one time investments. Simple operation, rather brain dead and doesn't require any special training or tricks. Just remember that a little oil really helps to cut metal. The benefit to doing this is no drilling or tapping (Big bitch if you don't have actual machine tools like a mill), and you can buy shafts with pre-cut keyways. Little higher in price, but you save because you don't have to buy taps or drills. You really can't buy gears like how you described, although there are a couple companies that offer gears with set screws like hobby companies. Think RC cars, those kind of shops. Problem there is that there are at most 5 or 6 sizes and pitches you can use, and they're all aluminum. If any part of your work weighs more than 15 pounds, it will eat that aluminum alive.
Going with setscrews, while not wanting to do any work, limits your options severely. Look at the price of average sized arbor presses and broaches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broaching_MachineHere is a look at what a broach is, you basically put that in a sleeve and on the inside of your gear, and use the arbor press to push it through. Straight forward and simple, no other tools necessary; just rinse, lather, and repeat. Buy some pre-keyed shaft and key stock and you're set, all you have to do is break out the old hack saw and some epoxy and you can keep a gear and key in place for anything that you probably want to do.
Being a machinist, I'm telling you that the approach you just offered is a hell of alot of investment, time, and learning.
I've been a machinist for 5 years, I've worked on aerospace, medical, and defense parts. Even to this day, without a damned expensive hogging machine, it still takes alot of time and all my expertise to properly machine one gear. Keep in mind here that I'm in charge of Journeymen with decades of experience, who still come to me with questions. My employer bills my time at $65/hr, and it can take me 2 days to make a custom gear. Don't forget material or tooling, we charge you for that too.
You're better off having a GEAR shop (Note that they're often quite different from a machine shop) make your quarry, far cheaper and less hassle. Gear making can be done by a machinist, but our equipment isn't geared for it (pun intended). The fact that any given gear has 31 related characteristics to it that all have to be held to a notable tolerance makes things a royal pain in the ass.
Best thing to do is to get a Machinery Handbook (decent coin, but the best investment a tinkerer will EVER make), learn the different pitches and what not, and order the gears from there. Once you realize what it is you want to do with it, there are only three things you need to know. Teeth, Pitch, and Diameter. Pitch need to be the same, teeth and diameter dictate power transfer and at what rate. Check out McMaster Carr, or MSC. As a matter of fact, McMaster Carr has some educational material on their site, just search for "gears". Even for worm and pinions, once you know what you're going to do with them, you just have to make up your mind about size.
Aside from the fact that the pictures shown on that site aren't even in the US, about half of those fowl were cocks.
Meaning that the entire premise of the OBVIOUS and BLATANT bias of that organization was completely rendered retarded by the fact that they weren't even showing egg-hens.
No they don't de-beak egg laying hens, they need to eat. They cannot eat without their beaks unless they are tube fed like foi-gras ducks. Way too much money to have every hen surgically altered with a tube feeding system to keep them alive. Foi-Gras makes $3,500 to a pound, eggs make much less.
Long story short, you're an uneducated liberal that's never worked a hard day in his/her life. Learn to suck a dick or sweep a floor, only thing you'll ever be good at until you get a clue.
Not a third party. This is the First Party. Being a lawyer is being an officer of the Court, and of the law. You are granted special liberties that others don't have in order to do your job. You can see evidence that is not available to the public, you can get access to private records, you can even arrest people (in the case of prosecutors).
The Bar is the standard set by state and federal courts as a minimum requirement to meet so that you can possess those capabilities. This isn't a 3rd party telling you that you cannot practice your field any more, this is yourself not being up to snuff to do it in the first place. This is being a cop and shooting people indiscriminately for the hell of it. This is being a public safety official and accepting bribes. This is a mother drowning her infant child just because she felt like it. While all the preceding examples may be more serious, you can sure as hell bet that cop isn't going to be a cop again; that safety official isn't going to get that job again; and the mother's remaining children will no longer be under her care.
Third party, nothing. Jack Thompson asked the Florida Bar for their permission to have power. He abused that power, that power got revoked. He's not getting it back. The difference here is that Jack Thompson can still make use of his degree and education, he just can't do it with greater power available to him than the average citizen. He can be a consultant (most law degrees are possessed by legal consultants, and well paid ones at that), or he can write, or even retire should he so choose. The only thing he is not doing is being granted the powers incumbent to officers of the court. This is as cool as it gets, my friend;).
Ok, fine, the murder rate in the UK is %10 that of the US. Your Rape, Assault, Robbery, and Domestic Violence rates are VASTLY higher than ours, however. Yeah sure, alot of drug dealers get killed in the United States. There are 10 times as many innocent women that get raped in the UK on a yearly basis (And the BCS is blatantly cooking the numbers to get the rate that low). This number of innocent rape victims per captita is almost 5 times that of the US rape rate (per capita).
Sit back, puff your chest, and enjoy your one little token over the US. Less people are murdered. Women and children are still twice to three times safer in the US than they are in the UK. In the categories that matter, women and children are an order of magnitude safer here in the states.
Keep bragging, do. Less drug dealers get killed in the UK. Whoop-Dee-Fucking-Doo. For all your effort, an English woman has a %5 chance of getting raped (according the the cooked numbers offered by the BCS, and that's just the crimes that are reported), compared to less than a single percent in the US. As a matter of fact, as far as violent crimes are concerned, the UK is damn near the MOST domestically violent country in the industrialized world. We don't know about the rest, because they don't have the police departments to record the data. Rape, Assault, Domestic Violence, Robbery, the UK is either the top of the charts or damn close among NATO countries. The US holds that status in only one respect: Murder. %90 of it is criminal on criminal. Let us hail the UK for their valiant efforts in eradicating gun ownership.
I'd rather raise a family in the states, thank you;)
Let it be noted, I am a scholar of the studies and statistics related to gun ownership in this country.
Although in the real world what is much more likely to happen is that the gun in your house will be used to kill an innocent person, be that a friend, relative, loved one, self, or someone mistaken for a criminal.
I will stop nodding my head while giggling at your ignorance if you can provide even a SHRED of a study that stood up to peer review. Just one hint. Doesn't even have to be a whole sentence.
You give me a SINGLE SOLITARY study, statistic, or report that has actually stood up to peer review to support that accusation, and I will forever erase that particular comment from things that I will lyrically grind liberals into dust for saying. Having been researching tirelessly every study, report and statistical analysis from a trustworthy source that I could find, I do not recall ever seeing a link between gun ownership and family violence. Suffice it to say that you're completely full of shit.
Don't yourself be so arrogant as to equate your desperate situation to the rest of the workforce as a whole. You didn't need to take the job, you just felt you were compelled to because your financial planning didn't account for the chance that you might not have income for a couple months.
In the US, for the most part, you work for what you chose to work for. Employment isn't a law here. I don't believe that non-competes are moral either, but it's how some people chose to do business. I chose not to work for those people, or to alter their contracts to allow me what liberties I won't budge on. I think the arrogance that pervades the ilk of people who relate their financial obligations to compelling forces of nature is even worse than that of the employers who enforce non-competes. You chose to have a family, you chose to rent an apartment and bring bills unto yourself. Freedom of choice, free country and all. Your situation was brought upon you by none other than yourself. That you would state that you were forced to take a job that had contractual obligations that you didn't like is a farce.
We, the people with a little money, don't give a damn about you. That's right, I'll say it. We don't give a flying rats ass about you because we didn't put you in your situation, you did. I think the whole notion that the rest of us have to pay more taxes or change the way we do business so that nobody ever has to be in dire straights is bullshit. Socialism doesn't, hasn't, and will never work in a free country. Sure, Sweden is great, go live there. I want freedom, and dire straights is inherent to having freedom. You're only free when you're living for yourself the way you want to live for yourself, and being forced to support everyone else is not, I repeat NOT conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Employers aren't forcing you to do anything, you're agreeing to all the terms they set down. It's your fault you signed the non-compete. Don't bitch at the people who don't have to live paycheck to paycheck simply because you felt you were compelled to do something when you really weren't.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a similar program when I was in my early teens. We picked up Java Tanks on our own, we heard about it after our PC Science teacher hooked us on Bolo after blowing through our typing and word processing classes.
You'd be surprised how fast a 12-14 year old kid could pick up on C, Java, TCL/TK (my first programming language), etc..
Which itself is a loss for the citizens who chose to not carry weapons. The criminals are carrying weapons why? Because there are other people carrying weapons.
So then the people that they rob that happen to be unarmed are non-consequential? I don't even need to remind everybody that almost universally, the biggest fear of a criminal preying on citizens is that they have a gun. What needs to be separated from the chaff is the fact that we're not concerned about criminal on criminal violence here, it shouldn't be taken into consideration (our worries shouldn't be about criminals, it should be about their victims). When a criminal is preying on CIVILIANS, his primary source of power is his ability to visit violence upon another. In countries like the UK, it means the strong rule. Because of the lack of easy to use yet deadly weapons, the big and strong have the upper hand unless they run into somebody with extensive martial arts training (again, frowned upon severely in the UK, people with such have to be registered and almost universally face charges no matter who initiated the violence). In countries like the US, it means they're rolling their dice save for a few areas where such tools are again illegal. Let's say the criminal has a gun, well that's not much different than just being big and strong in a place where guns are illegal. Either way they have the superior hand, unless their victim is packing a gun too. There's a double edged sword here, it DOES mean that far more people have an easier way to put themselves in such a situation so as to "force" someone to give them money or valuables. On the other hand, if everyone else can too, it's not that much of an advantage any more. This is more or less proven by the distribution of domestic violence in this country (meaning muggings, robberies, break-in robbery and murder, rape) is UNIVERSALLY higher in the parts that have draconian gun laws. D.C., NYC, LA, etc. are great examples. What has to be focused on is criminal on civilian, because that's all I care about. Gang shootings shouldn't be taken into too much consideration, although it should be noted that the rate of innocent death during gang shootings is much less in areas that don't restrict handguns and much much less in areas that have Shall-Issue CCW legislation.
I have fired plenty of guns. I happen to be a gun owner, as well. However I also happen to oppose guns as tools of self-defense. I have never met a person who honestly resolved a problem with another person by using a gun.
You probably know more people that carry every day than you think. Unless you're in California or New York or some state that does not as of yet have CCW legislation. Right now there are almost 35 states with Shall-Issue CCW legislation (which means you will be given a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so long as you don't have a criminal record and get the proper training, without being required to give a reason to carry such as having a restraining order or some such). The number CCW licenses currently valid is getting pretty high, I'd say that nation wide 1/30 people has a gun on them at all times. That's a conservative estimate. That number has increased per capita at almost an exponential rate since the early nineties. I don't see the crime rate going up. I'm one of these people, and I can tell you of 3 different situations that I've resolved satisfactorily (no injured, no dead, and me with all my money), without even having to draw my weapon. All I have to do is let them know it's there, and they know instantly that I'm not easy prey and RUN as fast as they can. Two of those instances were gang bangers alluding to having a gun and demanding money(they're getting smarter, showing me the gun is instant armed robbery, they fish for the strong-arm first in case they get caught), my first reaction was to put my hand on and reveal my holstered M1911, I couldn't even draw the weapon before they were 20 yards in the opposite direction leaving a dust trail. One of them almost knocked all his teeth ou
Only probable if you believe that the attacker's intent is to cause physical harm or death
It doesn't matter what the attacker's intent is. It matters what is perceived by the victim. If you point an airsoft pistol that you modified to look extremely realistic at me and demand money, I'm going to get within arms reach in a ploy that looks like I'm giving you my money, swat it away and put 2 in your chest with the .45 ACP pistol on my hip. I don't know that the gun isn't real, I just know it's a gun. Further more, I don't know if you intend on letting me live or shooting me because I saw your face. Same goes with knives, rubber or not, your intent is to make me fear for my life and give you my money. Well done, you made me fear for my life, except I'm the kinda guy who eliminates threats to my life as opposed to just hoping to god they'll go away.
It needs to be reiterated and understood that it DOES NOT matter what the attacker's intent is. We aren't psychic, all we know is that we are being attacked, and we don't know when they'll stop attacking. Whether it's when we're down and they have what they want, or until we're dead.
If you start arming everyone then the end result with the criminal populace is that they will be better armed. You need to look at what portion of crimes against the elderly are committed with weapons (and included violence from the perpetrator), and then evaluate if putting a weapon in the hands of the victim really would have changed the situation.
What is the criminal populace going to be armed with? RPG's? Unless you honestly think we're going to have roving gangs of tank-riding thugs, that argument holds no water. This whole notion that letting law-abiding citizens be law-abiding citizens (there are 270 MILLION guns in the hands of US Civilians, legally owned, don't forget that it is still legal to buy guns) results in criminals being even worse is bullshit. We can already buy guns, we have ALOT of them. Criminals are using the same types of guns that law-abiding citizens have. Trying to set up a premise that citizens following the LAW enables criminals or makes them worse is extremely dangerous and incredibly short sighted. There is absolutely no evidence to support it.
Then how hard would it be for the attacker to overpower the victim and take it from them anyways? At which point the criminal may now have two weapons, as they were already carrying one in anticipation of an armed victim.
Hypothetical situation that could be applied to letting police officers, court officers, and military carry guns as well. Straw man argument. The point of a firearm is that it takes extremely little effort to use. It does take training to use effectively as an offensive weapon past 10 feet or so, but very little to use defensively period. All I have to do is squeeze my trigger finger. This situation that you posit is exactly the kind of encounter this weapon is designed for, and offers great advantage to those that are easily overpowered.
If you're going to use hypothetical situations as reasons to outlaw things, you might as well make a laundry list of EVERYTHING that could possibly be used to kill someone, and ban it. Pencils, Pens, Shoelaces, I can give you a hypothetical situation in which any household or personal item you can name can be used to kill someone. Maybe if you had any experience with weapons or how to use them, you'd know more realistic litmus tests to use as a base to define something as too dangerous. Do us all a favor and take a CCW class, fire a gun, then judge.
And that is the point of this being offered as a medical device. The doctor authorizing it's allocation would probably have a pretty good grasp of the user's mental capacity and ability to deal with people.
Being in the military AT ALL put him in touch with armed conflicts, and how they play out. He knows more about that subject than you, gauranteed, how many armed conflicts have you participated in?
Where as, on the opposite side of the coin, the UK has the highest rate of domestic violence of an industrial country. Rape, battery, robbery and vandalism rates in the UK are MUCH higher than the US on a per capita basis. Comparing the US gun death rates to Europe doesn't prove a damn thing, the US has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world. The UK? France? Italy? They have practically NO private gun ownership. No shit the US is gonna have the highest rate of gun deaths.
As I said before, check out the rape rates, domestic violence rates, and property crime rates for all those countries compared to the US. The UK is the best example, yeah sure they have 1/10th of our murder rates, but their women aren't nearly as safe and their property is more likely to get vandalized or stolen. Before you start fretting over drug dealers shooting eachother, ask yourself if you want to tell the thousands of women that get raped as a result of not having a gun at home to defend themselves that their rape was worth it so that Jamal the Drug Dealer doesn't get shot this year.
Now check out the rape rate, domestic violence rate, and property crimes rate on a per capita basis. The US's rates for all the above are lower. Yeah sure we've got alot of drug dealers shooting eachother, but our women are safer and property generally stays in good condition.
In addition, soldiers are trained not to think, they're trained to follow orders.
Not so. Soldiers are trained to defend their country from threats both foreign and domestic. They're trained to accomplish the tasks set forth by their superiors so long as they're legal. The UCMJ doesn't allow for the slaughter of civilians. A Colonel orders the slaughter of a village, it's not going to get done.
Marines too, a Colonel orders the slaughter of a village, not only does it not get done, the Colonel gets arrested sent for a court martial.
You go ahead and do so. Then look at the OVERALL crime rate in other areas. Countries like the UK are far higher in regards of rape, robbery, home invasion and domestic violence. Be sure to look at current numbers, the BCS (UK) numbers keep getting higher and higher as they fuck with the books.
Right, and forcing rape victims to have the babies they might have will force the rapist to reform himself because now he has a child out there.
I'll stick with carrying a gun, thanks ;)
Your point doesn't prove anything. Of course GUN RELATED DEATHS are going to be higher in states with higher gun ownership. Those statistics, however, don't make the distinction between a suicide, a man killed in self defense, or a man killed in cold blood. Crime rate as a whole is a better litmus test than gun related deaths, because the numbers you provided don't tell you anything about the crime rate.
The FBI Crime Statistics Report only includes deaths for which there was a conviction or for an unsolved death. People acquitted don't count towards the murder rate (they didn't commit murder, it was justifiable homicide). In the end, while those states mentioned have a higher gun related death rate, they have a lower crime rate than their draconic cousins California and New York.
We're talking about criminal offense, not death in general. Dropping a guy for trying to hurt or maim you or your family isn't a crime in most states.
In case you didn't read what I posted, I said the crime rate went DOWN. Domestic violence included.
I still don't see numbers. Just a little over 6,000 people die a year in gun related violence. I know that the rate of gun use in non-violent apprehension of criminals, defense of home, dispersion of riots, shooting of dangerous animals, and the warding off of robberies is much higher than that.
Again, where are your numbers to back up your claims.
I would REALLY love to see what study you found that supports that claim.............
I've been looking for years to find one, still haven't ;)
Before you jump to prove me wrong, only peer-reviewed papers count, I hold everything to the same rigor that I hold science.
The studies that I have found, however, and the numbers at that show no problems with gun ownership. Take for instance our current crime rate. It's on a low plateau, crime has been staying at a pretty constant low for years now. Gun ownership, on the other hand, has been increasing significantly. The FBI Crime Statistics Report (2006, still waiting on the next one as they're done bi-annually) showed that for every single state that enacted a Shall-Issue Concealed Carry statute, crime rates have dropped. Every single one, no fliers, no flukes, every single one. I do believe the number is 31 states that have enacted one so far. For a great majority of those states, you can observe the drop starting in the year that the statute took effect. Think like a criminal for a second. You don't care what the law says. You're gonna find a gun one way or another. Now you want money. In California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, D.C., or Michigan, you're in heaven. You can walk up to someone, pull out your gun, and feel safe in the fact that the people you're robbing are law abiding citizens, and that it is illegal for them to use force against you. It's a win-win situation for criminals. They have no intent on abiding the law, and everyone with wallets to snatch are mandated to sit there and be good little victims.
Places like Dallas, or Pensacola, Denver, Missoula, Kansas City, or even Miami are quite a bit different. In states and cities that support CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits, now the criminal has some math to do. Now that well off looking guy walking with his girlfriend down the street isn't so appealing. He might have a gun, too. Criminals are predators, predators don't oft go after prey that could easily kill them unless they're completely desperate. The math changes quite a bit when pointing a gun at someone could get you killed. Most of them start second guessing their decision, and a fair number decide that maybe it's not a good idea after all. Having a weapon that makes you a badass in front of the girls and gives you a sense of entitlement doesn't do that as much when everyone else has one too. To quote a wiser man than me: "An armed society is a polite one."
As a gun proponent, I rebuff, I say show me the numbers. Put up or shut up. Prove with credible stats and studies (I.E. anything that can actually stand up to peer review, Daily Kos, bloggers, and the stupid shit you read on the lib pamphlets don't count), and I'll cede the point.
I would never use a gun to shoot an animal or human for any reason.
That state of mind is what makes people easy victims.
I don't respect too much people that don't consider themselves worthy of using force to preserve their life or liberty.
Actually it's not as difficult as you think to change up gears. Again, teeth, diameter, pitch. (Pitch and Diameter are directly related, but they're not necessarily proportional). In the long run, you want the pitch to be equal. In the short run, you're counting teeth. 4:1 means on the power side, you've 24 teeth, 6 on the transmission side. Power side is always on the left of the inequality. You want to go easy on your shafts? Try 1:4, 12 teeth on the power side, 48 on the transmission side. Racing a dragster? You want the ratio closer to 1:1. In the end, the pitch needs to match up, that's it. There are 1 pitch 12 tooth spur gears and 80 pitch 12 tooth spur gears. The smaller the pitch, the smaller the gear, but also the more susceptible to wear.
The thing you want to keep in mind here is the notion of prototyping. The first run of anything is the most expensive. Art is always a first run. It's going to be a little pricey, yeah. What you're paying for however (again, get a machinery handbook, $115 but it's the best thing that'll ever happen to you) is the assurance that you're going to get a good fit that will NEVER wear out.
Let's say you need a couple of pinions and a rack, and 2 or 3 spurs. $75-$100. That's it. Just money. No fighting with anything to get it to fit, not hang ups or hard spots in the action of your art, just money for guaranteed operation. After you've had to hand file a 40 pitch gear to get it to work with the rest of an assembly because you found it and figured it would work, you'd much rather spend that $100.
Now, as for mounting. There are 2 options. One is a set screw. The other is a key. The second option you can actually do at home for no other expense than an arbor press ($60) and some broaches ($20-$30). Those are one time investments. Simple operation, rather brain dead and doesn't require any special training or tricks. Just remember that a little oil really helps to cut metal. The benefit to doing this is no drilling or tapping (Big bitch if you don't have actual machine tools like a mill), and you can buy shafts with pre-cut keyways. Little higher in price, but you save because you don't have to buy taps or drills. You really can't buy gears like how you described, although there are a couple companies that offer gears with set screws like hobby companies. Think RC cars, those kind of shops. Problem there is that there are at most 5 or 6 sizes and pitches you can use, and they're all aluminum. If any part of your work weighs more than 15 pounds, it will eat that aluminum alive.
Going with setscrews, while not wanting to do any work, limits your options severely. Look at the price of average sized arbor presses and broaches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broaching_MachineHere is a look at what a broach is, you basically put that in a sleeve and on the inside of your gear, and use the arbor press to push it through. Straight forward and simple, no other tools necessary; just rinse, lather, and repeat. Buy some pre-keyed shaft and key stock and you're set, all you have to do is break out the old hack saw and some epoxy and you can keep a gear and key in place for anything that you probably want to do.
Being a machinist, I'm telling you that the approach you just offered is a hell of alot of investment, time, and learning.
I've been a machinist for 5 years, I've worked on aerospace, medical, and defense parts. Even to this day, without a damned expensive hogging machine, it still takes alot of time and all my expertise to properly machine one gear. Keep in mind here that I'm in charge of Journeymen with decades of experience, who still come to me with questions. My employer bills my time at $65/hr, and it can take me 2 days to make a custom gear. Don't forget material or tooling, we charge you for that too.
You're better off having a GEAR shop (Note that they're often quite different from a machine shop) make your quarry, far cheaper and less hassle. Gear making can be done by a machinist, but our equipment isn't geared for it (pun intended). The fact that any given gear has 31 related characteristics to it that all have to be held to a notable tolerance makes things a royal pain in the ass.
Best thing to do is to get a Machinery Handbook (decent coin, but the best investment a tinkerer will EVER make), learn the different pitches and what not, and order the gears from there. Once you realize what it is you want to do with it, there are only three things you need to know. Teeth, Pitch, and Diameter. Pitch need to be the same, teeth and diameter dictate power transfer and at what rate. Check out McMaster Carr, or MSC. As a matter of fact, McMaster Carr has some educational material on their site, just search for "gears". Even for worm and pinions, once you know what you're going to do with them, you just have to make up your mind about size.
Aside from the fact that the pictures shown on that site aren't even in the US, about half of those fowl were cocks.
Meaning that the entire premise of the OBVIOUS and BLATANT bias of that organization was completely rendered retarded by the fact that they weren't even showing egg-hens.
No they don't de-beak egg laying hens, they need to eat. They cannot eat without their beaks unless they are tube fed like foi-gras ducks. Way too much money to have every hen surgically altered with a tube feeding system to keep them alive. Foi-Gras makes $3,500 to a pound, eggs make much less.
Long story short, you're an uneducated liberal that's never worked a hard day in his/her life. Learn to suck a dick or sweep a floor, only thing you'll ever be good at until you get a clue.
Not a third party. This is the First Party. Being a lawyer is being an officer of the Court, and of the law. You are granted special liberties that others don't have in order to do your job. You can see evidence that is not available to the public, you can get access to private records, you can even arrest people (in the case of prosecutors).
The Bar is the standard set by state and federal courts as a minimum requirement to meet so that you can possess those capabilities. This isn't a 3rd party telling you that you cannot practice your field any more, this is yourself not being up to snuff to do it in the first place. This is being a cop and shooting people indiscriminately for the hell of it. This is being a public safety official and accepting bribes. This is a mother drowning her infant child just because she felt like it. While all the preceding examples may be more serious, you can sure as hell bet that cop isn't going to be a cop again; that safety official isn't going to get that job again; and the mother's remaining children will no longer be under her care.
Third party, nothing. Jack Thompson asked the Florida Bar for their permission to have power. He abused that power, that power got revoked. He's not getting it back. The difference here is that Jack Thompson can still make use of his degree and education, he just can't do it with greater power available to him than the average citizen. He can be a consultant (most law degrees are possessed by legal consultants, and well paid ones at that), or he can write, or even retire should he so choose. The only thing he is not doing is being granted the powers incumbent to officers of the court. This is as cool as it gets, my friend ;).
I don't know whether you're being a smartass or not.
The fact that Rice went to DU is proof alone of the silver spoon she had in her mouth.
And Obama? Eugh, he had a PLATINUM spoon in his mouth.
If by "the Western World" you mean the USA, yeah.
You must be british.
Ok, fine, the murder rate in the UK is %10 that of the US. Your Rape, Assault, Robbery, and Domestic Violence rates are VASTLY higher than ours, however. Yeah sure, alot of drug dealers get killed in the United States. There are 10 times as many innocent women that get raped in the UK on a yearly basis (And the BCS is blatantly cooking the numbers to get the rate that low). This number of innocent rape victims per captita is almost 5 times that of the US rape rate (per capita).
Sit back, puff your chest, and enjoy your one little token over the US. Less people are murdered. Women and children are still twice to three times safer in the US than they are in the UK. In the categories that matter, women and children are an order of magnitude safer here in the states.
Keep bragging, do. Less drug dealers get killed in the UK. Whoop-Dee-Fucking-Doo. For all your effort, an English woman has a %5 chance of getting raped (according the the cooked numbers offered by the BCS, and that's just the crimes that are reported), compared to less than a single percent in the US. As a matter of fact, as far as violent crimes are concerned, the UK is damn near the MOST domestically violent country in the industrialized world. We don't know about the rest, because they don't have the police departments to record the data. Rape, Assault, Domestic Violence, Robbery, the UK is either the top of the charts or damn close among NATO countries. The US holds that status in only one respect: Murder. %90 of it is criminal on criminal. Let us hail the UK for their valiant efforts in eradicating gun ownership.
I'd rather raise a family in the states, thank you ;)
Let it be noted, I am a scholar of the studies and statistics related to gun ownership in this country.
Although in the real world what is much more likely to happen is that the gun in your house will be used to kill an innocent person, be that a friend, relative, loved one, self, or someone mistaken for a criminal.
I will stop nodding my head while giggling at your ignorance if you can provide even a SHRED of a study that stood up to peer review. Just one hint. Doesn't even have to be a whole sentence.
You give me a SINGLE SOLITARY study, statistic, or report that has actually stood up to peer review to support that accusation, and I will forever erase that particular comment from things that I will lyrically grind liberals into dust for saying. Having been researching tirelessly every study, report and statistical analysis from a trustworthy source that I could find, I do not recall ever seeing a link between gun ownership and family violence. Suffice it to say that you're completely full of shit.
Don't yourself be so arrogant as to equate your desperate situation to the rest of the workforce as a whole. You didn't need to take the job, you just felt you were compelled to because your financial planning didn't account for the chance that you might not have income for a couple months.
In the US, for the most part, you work for what you chose to work for. Employment isn't a law here. I don't believe that non-competes are moral either, but it's how some people chose to do business. I chose not to work for those people, or to alter their contracts to allow me what liberties I won't budge on. I think the arrogance that pervades the ilk of people who relate their financial obligations to compelling forces of nature is even worse than that of the employers who enforce non-competes. You chose to have a family, you chose to rent an apartment and bring bills unto yourself. Freedom of choice, free country and all. Your situation was brought upon you by none other than yourself. That you would state that you were forced to take a job that had contractual obligations that you didn't like is a farce.
We, the people with a little money, don't give a damn about you. That's right, I'll say it. We don't give a flying rats ass about you because we didn't put you in your situation, you did. I think the whole notion that the rest of us have to pay more taxes or change the way we do business so that nobody ever has to be in dire straights is bullshit. Socialism doesn't, hasn't, and will never work in a free country. Sure, Sweden is great, go live there. I want freedom, and dire straights is inherent to having freedom. You're only free when you're living for yourself the way you want to live for yourself, and being forced to support everyone else is not, I repeat NOT conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Employers aren't forcing you to do anything, you're agreeing to all the terms they set down. It's your fault you signed the non-compete. Don't bitch at the people who don't have to live paycheck to paycheck simply because you felt you were compelled to do something when you really weren't.