Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.
Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
Yes, you are right. Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attck before anyone got killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0 And yes, it was in Colorado as well.
It's too bad the majority of people have been brainwashed over the last 30 years to think that they should never take any active role in defending themselves.
...where I live there's a law on the books from the 1800's that says spitting on sidewalks and swearing in front of "ladies" are arrestable offenses.
Spitting on sidewalks and spitting in general was known to spread disease --especially tuberculosis. Which had no know cure in the 1800's. Would you want someone who has Hepatitis C (no know cure as of yet; a virus known to survive for weeks on surfaces under the right conditions) able to spit on subway benches with impunity? On bus handles? On baby changing tables?
So, an arrestable offense considering the public health implications? Sure. I says yes.
first, i'm posting this as anonymous for various reasons. i have a non-resident florida ccw (concealed carry weapons) permit. i have taken various self defense classes that included tactics and the lawful use of self defense. i also belong to an organization that does monthly journals on self defense and the law.
second, it makes a world of difference if zimmerman was screaming. *all* the details matter.
ALL THE DETAILS MATTER. and we don't have enough details to make a decision. there's a crap load of speculation, uninformed opinion, and statements based on emotion and fantasy. many people want JUSTICE and those same people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. some of the posters here are no different than creationists and the anti-vacciners they routinely mock.
several posters here commented that zimmerman:
1. "chased down" martin. we don't know that. doesn't sound like, on the 911 tape, zimmeramn was doing a whole lot of running. but we're not sure. and if zimmerman was walking around the grounds trying to pinpoint the location of martin he wasn't doing anything illegal.
2. "shot an unarmed kid". so what? the law has *long* recognized when it's appropriate to use deadly force against an unarmed attacker or attackers. nothing new here:
shoot to prevent an active kidnapping? yup. shoot to prevent imminent arson of an occupied (some states, unoccupied) building? yup. shoot in a disparity of force situation (i.e., multiple attackers, attacker is much larger or attacker is attacking a disabled person)? yup. shoot to stop an active rape or active attempted sexual assault? yup. on the floor and being stomped by a *shod* foot? yup. when you can articulate that your are in danger of imminent grievous injury or death, you can employ the use of deadly force to protect yourself or other innocents. lay people don't understand this or have never studied these aspect of the legal use of force.
(note: did you know that you are legally justified in shooting an attacker who is armed with a knife from 21 feet away? wanna know why? look up the 21 foot rule or the Tueller drill or an article called How Close Is Too Close. lazy people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill )
zimmerman claims he lost sight of martin and was walking back to his car. he claims martin came up from behind and verbally confronted him, punched him once so hard that he fell to the ground and then began beating his head against the pavement. *IF* this is true, then zimmerman was well within rights to stop a deadly attack that would have resulted in grievous harm or death. you don't have to wait until you are seriously injured to use deadly force. he fired *once* to stop the attack.
3. *IF* martin came back to confront zimmerman after zimmerman was walking back to his car then martin is the aggressor, period. just being followed gives you NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ASSAULT another person. martin's mother has claimed numerous times that martin was "scared". then martin should have gone *home*. he should have *called the police*. from home or his cell. you do not confront and begin beating someone because you think you're being followed or think you were racially "profiled".
4. stand your ground laws have *nothing* to do with this particular case. if you're on the ground having your head smashed into the pavement then you ARE NOT STANDING YOUR GROUND. you are in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm or death. police interviewed one of the few people who *saw* and heard the attack. the witness statement agrred with what zimmerman told other officers during his interview. the "red sweater guy" (zimmerman) was on the ground with the the other guy on top of him.
but it doesn't matter anymore. martin's parents, celebrities, numerous politicians have all decided what *justice* must be metered out because they "know" what happened, or shoulda happened or what shoulda not happened.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
Wrong. Operation Gunrunner was very different from Fast and Furious. Gunrunner actually tried to track guns *AND* involved the Mexican law enforcement authorities.
Fast and Furious let the guns just walk. Walk away without a care in the world. Walk away whilst keeping the Mexican in the dark.
And yes, Fast and Furious was a ploy to enable sever gun control like the permanent reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
"In an April 2010 e-mail to a colleague, Burke predicted that the operation would have a huge public impact: âoeItâ(TM)s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasers of assault weapons,â he wrote. âoeSome of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.â
(1) That quote is 17 years old. (2) That quote isn't a proposal to ban guns, it is an admission of the political impossibility of banning guns.
Really?
""I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.""
I think they're probably about as good as.38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
I'm sure the Vietnamese, Iraqis and the Afghanis would like to disagree with you.
..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...
Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
We should obviously BAN illegal assault shovels! No citizen needs a shovel that's painted black and has rubber grip with finger grooves! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202562616/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Or one with a adjustable handle! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202819477/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Just like a telescoping stock, these adjustable shovels only have one use: to build hi-tech drug tunnels!!
I say we force landscapers, contractors and other manual laborers to be fingerprinted, obtain a shovel license and be limited to buying one shovel a month. Who the hell needs more than one shovel a month! Plus, you must specify the make, length and blade material on your shovel application. And specify exactly show good cause for needing a shovel. Though, the licensing officials will never objectively define what "good cause" is.
Because faces, eye color, hair all matter when women wear an outfit. For example, certain color or pattern dresses look better with blond hair. Certain cuts of a shoulder or neck line can look better with different shaped faces. Short hair vs long hair for certain styles. It all matters when putting it together.
It's the same with makeup. You use certain shades and strokes of color to help balance a woman's face or accentuate certain aspects, e.g., cheekbones.
I would say we need these guys a lot more than we need thugs assaulting each other or random people in the streets.
If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all.
Then I would say you and these self anointed "super heroes"are supremely ignorant of the laws governing the use of force, deadly force and self-defense. There is centuries of well established law (dating back to medieval England) governing when it is appropriate for civilians to use force and deadly force against assailants.
If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all
But how do these Super Yahoos know who is who in a situation like that? In the aforementioned 3 against 1 scenario, were the 3 the instigators or did the 1 try to rob the three and then had the tables turned on him?
Is that husky male who appears to be beating a woman a rapist? Or is he a vice cop who is trying to arrest a combative prostitute (who are known to yell "Rape!" when being handcuffed as to create a distraction)?
See the problem? You don't think do-gooders like these Yahoos have ended up in prison for getting involved in something they knew nothing about? You think just because he "only" carries mace that some individual might not end up dead from a head injury because of their actions and end up being charged with murder or manslaughter?
Use your Google Foo and look up Massad Ayoob's Ayoob Files. He's been writing about this stuff for years in an effort to educate the public about the use of force and deadly force. Ayoob is my "Super Hero": all research, writing. educating and no glory.
One thing (of many) I am doing that most public officials, the media and emergency management officials always fail to talk about: cleaning and inspecting my firearms.
Okay, the vinyl records, CRTs, incandescent light bulbs, and even the typewriter I can understand. But what could you possibly still be using that has vacuum tubes in it?
Hand wired, point-to-point soldered, made in the USA, and sold at an incredible value. Used KT-88 tubes, which were designed for audio use so they'll be around for quite some time. Most of Mike Sander's amps from the early eighties are still in operation today. With tube amps, the overall circuit design is very simple, i.e., easily repaired and modified for different tubes.
What about the problem of cholera epidemics? We've conquered that disease in the west, but it still ravages entire countries in Africa. Simply pouring cholera-infested feces onto crops (let alone handling it all) doesn't seem like a very sound idea.
That's the purpose of *composting* human or animal waste to begin with. The thermophilic reaction kills all harmful bacteria. In addition, you let your "pile" rest for 1 year before its used. What you then put on your crop is not feces but earthy smelling compost that you can safely handle with your bare hands.
These people do not have saw dust or a kitchen in some cases. Many parts of the world that have these problems are deforested already as that was the only fuel they had to cook with.
Any other bright ideas?
You don't have to use sawdust specifically. Any fine source of carbon works fine: rice hulls, leaf mold, coffee grounds. etc. The idea is to have your cover material produce small air pockets so an aerobic thermophilic reaction takes place instead of an anaerobic one.
No water needed. Your poop and kitchen scraps already contain all the water needed for a thermophilic reaction. Furthermore, you get nice compost that these people can use to fertilize their land. If not for growing things they can keep their land from turning into desert.
Also, *everything* organic goes into the compost pile: fats, oils, bone, meats, fish, urine, etc., etc.
There's thousands of folks already doing this in the US. We need to stop using purified drinking water to whisk away our poop.
It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.
Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.
I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.
You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]
Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.
Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.
Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.
I have had a Nokia 1208 (http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones/nokia-1208) for a couple of years and I love the damn thing. 7 hours of talk time. 7 hours! Text, voice, address book, simple calc, calendar, and alarm clock. Also, a simple LED flashlight at the top that comes in very handy at times.
Paid $16, unlocked, on eBay, brand new in the box. This series was developed for the developing Indian market.
As a ham/Linux/electronics geek, 'tis all I want or need.
P.S. Many a person were incensed after the L.A. Police Chief pulled all of his uniformed officers out of the L.A. riots and left citizens to fend for themselves, and there were even more pissed off when gun stores were telling them that there was a mandatory 10 day waiting period regardless of the raging riots.
No one has forgotten because this is tech that Mary Lou developed *after* she left OLPC and started Pixel Qi. Current OLPC kits do *not* have Pixel Qi screens.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are correct. Because ordinary people with guns won't know how to react in the presence of criminals with guns and innocent bystanders will get maimed and shot by bullets flying everywhere.
We can't possibly have, say, a 63 year old, getting off 4 shots in under 3 seconds --all of which hit both criminals-- in a crowded internat cafe: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/19035444/customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery
Nope. We will quickly forget the aforementioned incident becuase innocent lives we *not* lost. But gun control advocates will dance in the blood of the victims of the Colorado shooting in an effort to cram more useless gun control down our throats.
Nope. We can't train ordinary people simple tactics and gun safety.
It would of been better if everyone in the audience was armed. There would of been no shooting then... right?
Yes, you are right. Just like and armed churchgoer stopped this attck before anyone got killed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKQl-Qp5W0 And yes, it was in Colorado as well.
It's too bad the majority of people have been brainwashed over the last 30 years to think that they should never take any active role in defending themselves.
Yes, of course. Becuase had that movie theatre had a sign the gunman would have said "Shucks" and turned right around and found another theatre.
...where I live there's a law on the books from the 1800's that says spitting on sidewalks and swearing in front of "ladies" are arrestable offenses.
Spitting on sidewalks and spitting in general was known to spread disease --especially tuberculosis. Which had no know cure in the 1800's. Would you want someone who has Hepatitis C (no know cure as of yet; a virus known to survive for weeks on surfaces under the right conditions) able to spit on subway benches with impunity? On bus handles? On baby changing tables?
So, an arrestable offense considering the public health implications? Sure. I says yes.
first, i'm posting this as anonymous for various reasons. i have a non-resident florida ccw (concealed carry weapons) permit. i have taken various self defense classes that included tactics and the lawful use of self defense. i also belong to an organization that does monthly journals on self defense and the law.
second, it makes a world of difference if zimmerman was screaming. *all* the details matter.
ALL THE DETAILS MATTER. and we don't have enough details to make a decision. there's a crap load of speculation, uninformed opinion, and statements based on emotion and fantasy. many people want JUSTICE and those same people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. some of the posters here are no different than creationists and the anti-vacciners they routinely mock.
several posters here commented that zimmerman:
1. "chased down" martin. we don't know that. doesn't sound like, on the 911 tape, zimmeramn was doing a whole lot of running. but we're not sure. and if zimmerman was walking around the grounds trying to pinpoint the location of martin he wasn't doing anything illegal.
2. "shot an unarmed kid". so what? the law has *long* recognized when it's appropriate to use deadly force against an unarmed attacker or attackers. nothing new here:
shoot to prevent an active kidnapping? yup. shoot to prevent imminent arson of an occupied (some states, unoccupied) building? yup. shoot in a disparity of force situation (i.e., multiple attackers, attacker is much larger or attacker is attacking a disabled person)? yup. shoot to stop an active rape or active attempted sexual assault? yup. on the floor and being stomped by a *shod* foot? yup. when you can articulate that your are in danger of imminent grievous injury or death, you can employ the use of deadly force to protect yourself or other innocents. lay people don't understand this or have never studied these aspect of the legal use of force.
(note: did you know that you are legally justified in shooting an attacker who is armed with a knife from 21 feet away? wanna know why? look up the 21 foot rule or the Tueller drill or an article called How Close Is Too Close. lazy people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill )
zimmerman claims he lost sight of martin and was walking back to his car. he claims martin came up from behind and verbally confronted him, punched him once so hard that he fell to the ground and then began beating his head against the pavement. *IF* this is true, then zimmerman was well within rights to stop a deadly attack that would have resulted in grievous harm or death. you don't have to wait until you are seriously injured to use deadly force. he fired *once* to stop the attack.
3. *IF* martin came back to confront zimmerman after zimmerman was walking back to his car then martin is the aggressor, period. just being followed gives you NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ASSAULT another person. martin's mother has claimed numerous times that martin was "scared". then martin should have gone *home*. he should have *called the police*. from home or his cell. you do not confront and begin beating someone because you think you're being followed or think you were racially "profiled".
4. stand your ground laws have *nothing* to do with this particular case. if you're on the ground having your head smashed into the pavement then you ARE NOT STANDING YOUR GROUND. you are in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm or death. police interviewed one of the few people who *saw* and heard the attack. the witness statement agrred with what zimmerman told other officers during his interview. the "red sweater guy" (zimmerman) was on the ground with the the other guy on top of him.
but it doesn't matter anymore. martin's parents, celebrities, numerous politicians have all decided what *justice* must be metered out because they "know" what happened, or shoulda happened or what shoulda not happened.
zimmerman will never get a fair shake in this
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
Wrong. Operation Gunrunner was very different from Fast and Furious. Gunrunner actually tried to track guns *AND* involved the Mexican law enforcement authorities.
Fast and Furious let the guns just walk. Walk away without a care in the world. Walk away whilst keeping the Mexican in the dark.
And yes, Fast and Furious was a ploy to enable sever gun control like the permanent reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
"In an April 2010 e-mail to a colleague, Burke predicted that the operation would have a huge public impact: âoeItâ(TM)s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasers of assault weapons,â he wrote. âoeSome of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.â
Article at Of Arms & The Law: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/01/us_attorney_den.php
(1) That quote is 17 years old.
(2) That quote isn't a proposal to ban guns, it is an admission of the political impossibility of banning guns.
Really?
""I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.""
Article is from 2009. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank..
Then you know little about warfare. Tanks are *never* sent in without supporting infantry. A tank without infantry is a sitting duck. Google: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=EWEsT7CmDKbV0QGTh6nHCg&ved=0CB0QBSgA&q=tanks+with+infantry+support&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=698
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
I'm not sure if the American revolutionary idea of an armed militia overthrowing an oppressive government has much basis in reality now, if it ever did. The American Revolution was only possible because Britain was engaged in a much more important war close to home. More importantly, the last time that I checked the U.S. spent more on it's military than every other nation combined. A successful revolution against the government is going to have to involve inciting a substantial part of that military to defect to the revolutionary side. Shooting at them is not going to achieve that aim.
I'm sure the Vietnamese, Iraqis and the Afghanis would like to disagree with you.
..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...
Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
I don't see the price of competent writing, directing, acting, sets, and the like plummeting.
Robert Rodriguez, Shane Carruth and hundreds of others would like to have a word with you.
The same Robert Rodriguez who had sumbit to medical research studies to come up with funding for his first film?
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rodriguez#Career
Link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&ei=2zPmTs_kMMT00gGT98X9BQ&ved=0CDAQvwUoAQ&q=robert+rodriguez+medical+research+studies&spell=1&biw=1320&bih=696
We should obviously BAN illegal assault shovels! No citizen needs a shovel that's painted black and has rubber grip with finger grooves! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202562616/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Or one with a adjustable handle! (http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202819477/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053) Just like a telescoping stock, these adjustable shovels only have one use: to build hi-tech drug tunnels!!
I say we force landscapers, contractors and other manual laborers to be fingerprinted, obtain a shovel license and be limited to buying one shovel a month. Who the hell needs more than one shovel a month! Plus, you must specify the make, length and blade material on your shovel application. And specify exactly show good cause for needing a shovel. Though, the licensing officials will never objectively define what "good cause" is.
Because faces, eye color, hair all matter when women wear an outfit. For example, certain color or pattern dresses look better with blond hair. Certain cuts of a shoulder or neck line can look better with different shaped faces. Short hair vs long hair for certain styles. It all matters when putting it together.
It's the same with makeup. You use certain shades and strokes of color to help balance a woman's face or accentuate certain aspects, e.g., cheekbones.
If you want growth, go elsewhere.
Should I get cancer?
I would say we need these guys a lot more than we need thugs assaulting each other or random people in the streets.
If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all.
Then I would say you and these self anointed "super heroes"are supremely ignorant of the laws governing the use of force, deadly force and self-defense. There is centuries of well established law (dating back to medieval England) governing when it is appropriate for civilians to use force and deadly force against assailants.
Anybody who likes to consider them a well informed citizen should read Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Read this even if you have no intention of ever owning a gun. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001
If I got jumped by a bunch of guys, I would rather have someone in body armor show up with mace than no-one at all
But how do these Super Yahoos know who is who in a situation like that? In the aforementioned 3 against 1 scenario, were the 3 the instigators or did the 1 try to rob the three and then had the tables turned on him?
Is that husky male who appears to be beating a woman a rapist? Or is he a vice cop who is trying to arrest a combative prostitute (who are known to yell "Rape!" when being handcuffed as to create a distraction)?
See the problem? You don't think do-gooders like these Yahoos have ended up in prison for getting involved in something they knew nothing about? You think just because he "only" carries mace that some individual might not end up dead from a head injury because of their actions and end up being charged with murder or manslaughter?
Use your Google Foo and look up Massad Ayoob's Ayoob Files. He's been writing about this stuff for years in an effort to educate the public about the use of force and deadly force. Ayoob is my "Super Hero": all research, writing. educating and no glory.
One thing (of many) I am doing that most public officials, the media and emergency management officials always fail to talk about: cleaning and inspecting my firearms.
Okay, the vinyl records, CRTs, incandescent light bulbs, and even the typewriter I can understand. But what could you possibly still be using that has vacuum tubes in it?
My Quicksilver Audio Silver 88 Mono amplifiers? Link: http://www.quicksilveraudio.com/products/Silver%2088.html
Hand wired, point-to-point soldered, made in the USA, and sold at an incredible value. Used KT-88 tubes, which were designed for audio use so they'll be around for quite some time. Most of Mike Sander's amps from the early eighties are still in operation today. With tube amps, the overall circuit design is very simple, i.e., easily repaired and modified for different tubes.
A 900 pound amateur corrupt gorilla is much more dangerous for everybody than an extremely corrupt gazelle.
Hi! I'm new here!
Should I say something about gorillas freezing in the winter?
What about the problem of cholera epidemics? We've conquered that disease in the west, but it still ravages entire countries in Africa. Simply pouring cholera-infested feces onto crops (let alone handling it all) doesn't seem like a very sound idea.
That's the purpose of *composting* human or animal waste to begin with. The thermophilic reaction kills all harmful bacteria. In addition, you let your "pile" rest for 1 year before its used. What you then put on your crop is not feces but earthy smelling compost that you can safely handle with your bare hands.
Dumping un-composted "feces", aka nigh soil, straight onto crops can make people sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_soil
These people do not have saw dust or a kitchen in some cases. Many parts of the world that have these problems are deforested already as that was the only fuel they had to cook with.
Any other bright ideas?
You don't have to use sawdust specifically. Any fine source of carbon works fine: rice hulls, leaf mold, coffee grounds. etc. The idea is to have your cover material produce small air pockets so an aerobic thermophilic reaction takes place instead of an anaerobic one.
How about teaching people how to use a 5 gallon plastic bucket, some sawdust and their kitchen scraps to compost their poop.
Link: http://humanurehandbook.com/
No water needed. Your poop and kitchen scraps already contain all the water needed for a thermophilic reaction. Furthermore, you get nice compost that these people can use to fertilize their land. If not for growing things they can keep their land from turning into desert.
Also, *everything* organic goes into the compost pile: fats, oils, bone, meats, fish, urine, etc., etc.
There's thousands of folks already doing this in the US. We need to stop using purified drinking water to whisk away our poop.
Humanure videos: http://humanurehandbook.com/videos.html
Forums: http://www.jenkinspublishing.com/messages/
It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.
Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.
I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.
You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]
Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.
Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.
Lastly, the officer had a bit more than an excuse of not putting down a 3" blade in "2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired." Here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html
Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.
What I just described above was the result of a officer named Dennis Tueller. He came up with what is now famously (among cops and people with pistol permits who take training) know as the Tueller drill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill You can read the article he wrote called "How Close Is Too Close: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm Videos on YouTube demonstrating this: http://www.youtube.com/results
I agree.
I have had a Nokia 1208 (http://www.nokiausa.com/find-products/phones/nokia-1208) for a couple of years and I love the damn thing. 7 hours of talk time. 7 hours! Text, voice, address book, simple calc, calendar, and alarm clock. Also, a simple LED flashlight at the top that comes in very handy at times.
Paid $16, unlocked, on eBay, brand new in the box. This series was developed for the developing Indian market.
As a ham/Linux/electronics geek, 'tis all I want or need.
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
Well, yeah. You think the cops have any legal obligation to protect you?
Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
If all hell breaks in your town ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_riots ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina) whose responsibility is it to protect your own skin?
Yours.
P.S. Many a person were incensed after the L.A. Police Chief pulled all of his uniformed officers out of the L.A. riots and left citizens to fend for themselves, and there were even more pissed off when gun stores were telling them that there was a mandatory 10 day waiting period regardless of the raging riots.
No one has forgotten because this is tech that Mary Lou developed *after* she left OLPC and started Pixel Qi. Current OLPC kits do *not* have Pixel Qi screens.