The EPA has actually made huge strides in the U.S. To the point that big cities which used to have smog constantly and you could see the air are now clear.
So, naturally, Republicans want to end the EPA. Can't let the hippies win!
Soldiers. Plural. The guard arrived by himself and waited for police backup to arrive. The wars you mentioned would have turned out far differently had we only sent a single soldier into battle, yes?
Why are you speaking as if you were an expert when you have never even touched a gun in your life? I can reload a revolver as fast as someone reloads a semi auto.
Why are you speaking as if you knew anything about me? While not a gun expert (nor was I implying I am), I have handled plenty of guns. While you may be able to reload a revolver as fast as some can reload a semi-automatic weapon, most people can't.
On the other hand, an assault rifle with a big clip is a big advantage to somebody who want to commit this sort of atrocity, and likely increases the body count, and it's hard to see how such weapons provide great benefits for sport or self defense.
Then read up on Columbine. An armed guard exchanged gunfire with one of the shooters and then waited for backup. The shooters continued for another 40 minutes before taking their own lives. SWAT hadn't even entered the building at that time. The shooters were on their own timetable.
The assault rifles look cool and everything but that's about it. In close quarters combat, where your goal is to make as many kills as possible, a shotgun with buckshot is the best thing to have.
The Newtown shooter wasn't involved in combat. It was a slaughter. A semi-automatic weapon is a much more effective weapon for a slaughter.
Speaking as someone who has worked in motion pictures where we were putting out 2K images onto 35mm 20 years ago, 2K was just fine. Nobody noticed or complained and the movies made piles of money. Now, you say 4K looks better in a theater. Let's say you're right. Why does that mean one needs 4K for the considerably smaller screen in one's home?
So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook? You should have just guarded your pants better or worn suspenders?
Or use it as evidence of assault and battery, bullying, hazing, etc.
...it will be another excruciatingly difficult year for high school seniors to get accepted into top-notch undergraduate computer science and engineering programs.
Isn't it supposed to be excruciatingly difficult to get accepted into top-notch programs?
I suspect you may actually like the conclusions in that article, even though it places more importance on the second amendment that you might prefer.
Thanks for the link. I don't think he places more importance on the Second Amendment than I would. I don't deny the Second Amendment gives people the right to own arms (though when most gun lovers hear "gun control", they reflexively translate that to "taking all my guns away"). I do have a problem with the notion that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to any armament they desire and carry it wherever they go without restriction, which he addresses in the articles last two sentences:
Realistic gun control today may not be exactly what the Framers had in mind when they said that the armed citizenry should be "well regulated." But--at least in a world that is so distant from the Founders--it's close enough.
Slashdot Mirror
The EPA has actually made huge strides in the U.S. To the point that big cities which used to have smog constantly and you could see the air are now clear.
So, naturally, Republicans want to end the EPA. Can't let the hippies win!
Imagine if the soldiers...
Soldiers. Plural. The guard arrived by himself and waited for police backup to arrive. The wars you mentioned would have turned out far differently had we only sent a single soldier into battle, yes?
Really? Running across an open field with no cover towards an opponent with more firepower? Wow, I didn't know it was that simple.
Why are you speaking as if you were an expert when you have never even touched a gun in your life? I can reload a revolver as fast as someone reloads a semi auto.
Why are you speaking as if you knew anything about me? While not a gun expert (nor was I implying I am), I have handled plenty of guns. While you may be able to reload a revolver as fast as some can reload a semi-automatic weapon, most people can't.
You might be desparate for money, and you might be the fastest sumbitch in town - but you can't outrun a .380. The old woman is untouchable.
Unless you shoot her first, just to be on the safe side.
On the other hand, an assault rifle with a big clip is a big advantage to somebody who want to commit this sort of atrocity, and likely increases the body count, and it's hard to see how such weapons provide great benefits for sport or self defense.
+1 Insightful
Then read up on Columbine. An armed guard exchanged gunfire with one of the shooters and then waited for backup. The shooters continued for another 40 minutes before taking their own lives. SWAT hadn't even entered the building at that time. The shooters were on their own timetable.
Sorry but Charles Whitman knew how to handle a weapon and he didn't exhibit any signs of being Joe Psychopath before he snapped.
The assault rifles look cool and everything but that's about it. In close quarters combat, where your goal is to make as many kills as possible, a shotgun with buckshot is the best thing to have.
The Newtown shooter wasn't involved in combat. It was a slaughter. A semi-automatic weapon is a much more effective weapon for a slaughter.
Wow, you really buy into that whole NRA fantasy thing, don't you? Fascinating.
Why are you not arguing that these highly dangerous shotguns to be banned?
Because reloading a sem-automatic weapon is trivial. Not so with a revolver, shotgun, or single-action rifle.
Maybe any auto load even. Bolt action, pump and lever action might stay.
Works for me.
She could very easily have needed a high capacity magazine to continue her defense.
Nice theory but, in reality, she didn't.
In all fairness to Apple, that patent was filed in 2008.
Too bad the family didn't have doctors study what years of (alleged) steroid abuse did to him. Easier to point the finger at someone else, I suppose.
Speaking as someone who has worked in motion pictures where we were putting out 2K images onto 35mm 20 years ago, 2K was just fine. Nobody noticed or complained and the movies made piles of money. Now, you say 4K looks better in a theater. Let's say you're right. Why does that mean one needs 4K for the considerably smaller screen in one's home?
If 2K is good enough for theaters (and it is), who is it that wants 4K for their living room?
So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook? You should have just guarded your pants better or worn suspenders?
Or use it as evidence of assault and battery, bullying, hazing, etc.
Maybe I did something shameful and don't want it to be public?
Then you shouldn't have done it in public.
...it will be another excruciatingly difficult year for high school seniors to get accepted into top-notch undergraduate computer science and engineering programs.
Isn't it supposed to be excruciatingly difficult to get accepted into top-notch programs?
The author of the article looks too young to be acting like such a grumpy old man.
I suspect you may actually like the conclusions in that article, even though it places more importance on the second amendment that you might prefer.
Thanks for the link. I don't think he places more importance on the Second Amendment than I would. I don't deny the Second Amendment gives people the right to own arms (though when most gun lovers hear "gun control", they reflexively translate that to "taking all my guns away"). I do have a problem with the notion that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to any armament they desire and carry it wherever they go without restriction, which he addresses in the articles last two sentences:
Realistic gun control today may not be exactly what the Framers had in mind when they said that the armed citizenry should be "well regulated." But--at least in a world that is so distant from the Founders--it's close enough.
Why should owning a gun be illegal if you don't misuse it?
Does the same apply to an atomic bomb?
Again, if your "liberty" demands the blood of 20 innocent children, then I don't believe you know what liberty really is.
I don't think you and Mr. Adams are referring to the same kind of liberty.