Back when I was a mere tike, viewing TV with the family, I was struck at just how attached my parents were to the advertisements. They would not tolerate something as mild as lowering the volume; they would obediently stare at & absorb that mental trash. I can easily imagine your scene playing out in their living rooms today.
" left to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago"
Well, maybe, maybe not. But if you're so afraid of this possibility, then don't claim to be speaking for the common person to decide. You want the state to decide.
Sophistry. Enforcement of contracts is different from dictating contractual terms. Heck, even enforcement of contracts is possible without government, just more messy (witness the criminal underworld).
Your "deduction" consists of inventing the WAG "Roughly 98%... convincing other person", then following it up with inferences which (given appropriate qualification) should well dilute that imaginary 98% number, then concluding that your "98% toys A-OK" is somehow "according to data". Sorry, that's so weak as to not require a detailed discredit jobbie.
For some real data, poll those of your acquaintances who carry a gun whether they would instead carry a toy. Try not to quote your 98% guess to them - they might die laughing and not provide you with data.
"Toy guns are 98% effective as self-defense tools, according to the larger gun-defense use number."
You're imagining that. And you're failing to project from the New Jersey mandate for only selling these toys after they go on the market. The law's proponents intend that over time, the toys would crowd out the real things. At that point, criminals have an incentive to recognize - or even (gosh!) jam these RFID toys - shifting that imaginary 98% balance.
So, if you were to come across data that says otherwise, you'd be intellectually honest enough to change your mind?
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 30,000 gun deaths per year in the states (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) are accidental?
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 60,000-2,000,000 armed self-defence instances per year in the states ("numerous statistics") do you disbelieve? (The lower number of the two apprx. the one admitted by anti-gun left.)
From your keen insight, which number is actually larger?
"I'd wager the failure rate is much higher than that,"
Talk is cheap. Your "wager" means nothing to another person who needs to evaluate her self-defence needs. You're not putting up real money, nor shouldering liability in case your "wager" (WAG) is wrong.
"if you want to make all of the training the police go through"
How interesting. Just how much gun training do you believe typical police actually receive? (And what does gun training actually have to do with all the issues that this RFID gun thingie is supposed to address?)
" If A > B we should pick Y, if B > A we should pick X."
It is only simple if you imagine yourself to be an omniscient and wise god with accurate figures, and omnipotence to force people to submit to your population-wide analysis despite their actual personal situation.
Please be specific, do you believe: a) that armed civilians do not prevent crimes nearly every day? b) that armed police do prevent (a material fraction of) crimes nearly every day? c) that the only reason for not hearing about (a) would be that (a) does not exist?
While you're probably just joking, note that reckless endangerment is a reasonably well-established sort of legal offence. If routine traffic regulations can't be connected to a tangible level of undue risk to others, then darned right they need to be questioned.
A sign that all this legal posturing is not about what it claims is the perpetual exemption of law enforcement from being subjected to technological gun-tracing / -smartening efforts. The lives of police are no more important than ordinary citizens'. If it's not good enough for the boys and girls in blue, it's not good enough for civilians. After all, civilians are almost always closer to the place & time of crime than the police.
Being approached by someone "fully armed with jackets" is not reason to claim self-defence -- lest you suppose perps would lawfully start blasting when police come by.
Slashdot Mirror
You killed many straw men (or is that straw women?), congratulations.
"Itâ(TM)s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto ..."
You hang around a weird/scary bunch of angry geeky guys. The "manifesto" becomes far-out well before the murder-intent plans.
We reject this false choice, er, loaded question.
"Race is primarily a social construct, rather than a genetic one."
And yet somehow it is passed on from parents to children -- even those not socialized by those parents.
Carry electrical tape, adhere improvised cover to screen. Problem solved.
Back when I was a mere tike, viewing TV with the family, I was struck at just how attached my parents were to the advertisements. They would not tolerate something as mild as lowering the volume; they would obediently stare at & absorb that mental trash. I can easily imagine your scene playing out in their living rooms today.
.. what will the Bahama government/people do - will they sue the US for the presumable crime of breaking into their phone system?
" left to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago"
Well, maybe, maybe not. But if you're so afraid of this possibility, then don't claim to be speaking for the common person to decide. You want the state to decide.
Sophistry. Enforcement of contracts is different from dictating contractual terms. Heck, even enforcement of contracts is possible without government, just more messy (witness the criminal underworld).
"if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do"
That's called the free market.
Your "deduction" consists of inventing the WAG "Roughly 98% ... convincing other person", then following it up with inferences which (given appropriate qualification) should well dilute that imaginary 98% number, then concluding that your "98% toys A-OK" is somehow "according to data". Sorry, that's so weak as to not require a detailed discredit jobbie.
For some real data, poll those of your acquaintances who carry a gun whether they would instead carry a toy. Try not to quote your 98% guess to them - they might die laughing and not provide you with data.
"Toy guns are 98% effective as self-defense tools, according to the larger gun-defense use number."
You're imagining that. And you're failing to project from the New Jersey mandate for only selling these toys after they go on the market. The law's proponents intend that over time, the toys would crowd out the real things. At that point, criminals have an incentive to recognize - or even (gosh!) jam these RFID toys - shifting that imaginary 98% balance.
"The "brandishing is self-defense" numbers are irrelevant to a discussion on the firing reliability"
No - if one brandishes a toy gun, its deterrent effect is discountable.
"I admit I underestimated ..."
(And by 2+ orders of magnitude.) Thank you.
" it's what I believe "
So, if you were to come across data that says otherwise, you'd be intellectually honest enough to change your mind?
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 30,000 gun deaths per year in the states (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) are accidental?
From your numerous statistics, what fraction of the (apprx) 60,000-2,000,000 armed self-defence instances per year in the states ("numerous statistics") do you disbelieve? (The lower number of the two apprx. the one admitted by anti-gun left.)
From your keen insight, which number is actually larger?
"Seriously, though, this is a stupid argument."
Which is cool, because only you made it.
"I'd wager the failure rate is much higher than that,"
Talk is cheap. Your "wager" means nothing to another person who needs to evaluate her self-defence needs. You're not putting up real money, nor shouldering liability in case your "wager" (WAG) is wrong.
"if you want to make all of the training the police go through"
How interesting. Just how much gun training do you believe typical police actually receive? (And what does gun training actually have to do with all the issues that this RFID gun thingie is supposed to address?)
" If A > B we should pick Y, if B > A we should pick X."
It is only simple if you imagine yourself to be an omniscient and wise god with accurate figures, and omnipotence to force people to submit to your population-wide analysis despite their actual personal situation.
In the real world, you're uniscient and impotent.
Please be specific, do you believe:
a) that armed civilians do not prevent crimes nearly every day?
b) that armed police do prevent (a material fraction of) crimes nearly every day?
c) that the only reason for not hearing about (a) would be that (a) does not exist?
While you're probably just joking, note that reckless endangerment is a reasonably well-established sort of legal offence. If routine traffic regulations can't be connected to a tangible level of undue risk to others, then darned right they need to be questioned.
A sign that all this legal posturing is not about what it claims is the perpetual exemption of law enforcement from being subjected to technological gun-tracing / -smartening efforts. The lives of police are no more important than ordinary citizens'. If it's not good enough for the boys and girls in blue, it's not good enough for civilians. After all, civilians are almost always closer to the place & time of crime than the police.
"Multiply by 24 hours and you get 1.9 MJ/m^2 per day."
You can multiply it with any number you like, but you won't get much sunshine at night.
If you look at GAAP numbers, as opposed to non-GAAP fiction, it starts to make more sense.
(Earlier, you didn't say anything about brandishing weapons.)
Being approached by someone "fully armed with jackets" is not reason to claim self-defence -- lest you suppose perps would lawfully start blasting when police come by.
You just need some Genuine People Personalities software from Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.