But it turns out that the 100 pound woman is 2.7 times more likely to be murdered if she keeps a gun in her home. So, maybe she should just watch the 250 pound guy play baseball.
There's an assumption in my argument that the people involved in the discussion are smart enough to predict that bad things are likely to happen based on past history. If you are not smart enough to do this, try to get put away without hurting anyone first.
It turns out that the assertion about blunt objects being used in more murders than guns isn't true.
And regarding suicide vs homicide, the paper I cited above gave a 2.7 times greater risk for homicide, not suicide, as a result of gun ownership in the home.
I think you have to look at the statistics cited by the gun proponents with a more jaundiced eye. All the ones I've seen in this discussion seem to have been discredited.
I'd really like to think that white kids and girls of all colors were getting away with bringing a package with a wire and a light in it to school and having nothing happen.
As others have already noted, what you believed about guns and Australia is not true.
I actually have really strict laws that I must follow regarding my swimming pool, at risk of criminal or civil liability, and I exceeded them when my kid was young. There were two physical barriers between him and the pool.
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
My dad was a reserve and was called up for both World War II and Korea. He killed people in Germany, and had a Purple Heart and a panel of decorations. He brought home a Luger which he'd taken off of some German. He destroyed the firing pin, because he knew that his family would be safer without an operating weapon in the home.
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't. Everybody has a crazy day in their life. Everyone.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
From a good-to-society perspective, it is bad to discourage people who can make things from making them, and showing them to their school peers, just because mundanes would not understand them and feel threatened. We don't want everyone to be a mundane, we'd not be able to feed our society if that was the case.
The basic problem is that mundanes see any home-made electronic device as a bomb. This is the terminal point of anti-intellectual bias in society, if you can make something, it's assumed that you're out to make something harmful.
That might be typical, but my slides contain all of the content that I want to cover, and then I speak extemporaneously about the points in the slides. No rehearsals, no notes other than the slides. It works better that way.
Go ahead and be sarcastic, AC. But sometime look around you at the folks who are everything that's expected of them, and who do everything that's expected of them. And what the reward is for it.
Then, try convincing them to get off the merry-go-round, from the outside.
Which means the licensing must work, because a binding requirement rather than just faith would be more likely to keep things fair. In this case, the licensing must be primarily based upon contract law, a departure from Open Source, and must be based on terms that themselves depart from Open Source.
There's a really big learning curve if different people are to implement each turn. Much larger than for software, because gaining the knowledge requires all of that expensive test equipment. $50K for a shop is really rock-bottom, new quality tools cost more than $50K each.
Crowdfunding has been the most successful implementation of sponsoring hardware implementation, but it's a chancy thing. We have held off on crowdfunding until we have a design that actually works. Then, funding can cover manufacturing rather than design, and there is a high probability that people will actually get the reward they pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
In Great Britain most cops don't have guns. The ones who do have a distressing tendency to kill innocent people.
So, yes, I'd take them from the police too.
But it turns out that the 100 pound woman is 2.7 times more likely to be murdered if she keeps a gun in her home. So, maybe she should just watch the 250 pound guy play baseball.
There's an assumption in my argument that the people involved in the discussion are smart enough to predict that bad things are likely to happen based on past history. If you are not smart enough to do this, try to get put away without hurting anyone first.
It turns out that the assertion about blunt objects being used in more murders than guns isn't true.
And regarding suicide vs homicide, the paper I cited above gave a 2.7 times greater risk for homicide, not suicide, as a result of gun ownership in the home.
I think you have to look at the statistics cited by the gun proponents with a more jaundiced eye. All the ones I've seen in this discussion seem to have been discredited.
I'm sorry, I didn't know there was anyone not of genus homo in the audience. I'll be more inclusive next time :-)
I'd really like to think that white kids and girls of all colors were getting away with bringing a package with a wire and a light in it to school and having nothing happen.
Yes, society is a device to enable people to live together and laws are the major means of its implementation.
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homocide in the Home. They say 2.7 to 1. That's just the first I found with a Google search. And the fatal school shootings list is really obscenely frequent now.
Pardon me for getting exasperated, but I shouldn't really have to tell you to read the news! This stuff is right in front of you.
As others have already noted, what you believed about guns and Australia is not true.
I actually have really strict laws that I must follow regarding my swimming pool, at risk of criminal or civil liability, and I exceeded them when my kid was young. There were two physical barriers between him and the pool.
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
The gun is only dangerous when it's in your hand. So, we could actually do without gun laws if we eliminated people instead :-)
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
My dad was a reserve and was called up for both World War II and Korea. He killed people in Germany, and had a Purple Heart and a panel of decorations. He brought home a Luger which he'd taken off of some German. He destroyed the firing pin, because he knew that his family would be safer without an operating weapon in the home.
Guns are pretty reliable. Your brain isn't. Everybody has a crazy day in their life. Everyone.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
From a good-to-society perspective, it is bad to discourage people who can make things from making them, and showing them to their school peers, just because mundanes would not understand them and feel threatened. We don't want everyone to be a mundane, we'd not be able to feed our society if that was the case.
At various times, I brought to school a phone-tapping device, a gas mask, and various incomprehensible-to-the-layman scientific devices.
Obviously I would not have fit in with kids like you. But that is no sin.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say SCREW YOUR GUN RIGHTS.
If you are carrying an unconventional looking electronic device, you already look different from them. Especially in a school.
The basic problem is that mundanes see any home-made electronic device as a bomb. This is the terminal point of anti-intellectual bias in society, if you can make something, it's assumed that you're out to make something harmful.
You're arguing with mr_mischef's point, which has nothing to do with my talk.
The appeal in Oracle v. Google said otherwise. I would have preferred it not go that way. On the other hand, the GPL is a bit stronger than before.
I like folks like you. When it's time to get a job, you can stack boxes really well, and do it cheaply!
That might be typical, but my slides contain all of the content that I want to cover, and then I speak extemporaneously about the points in the slides. No rehearsals, no notes other than the slides. It works better that way.
Go ahead and be sarcastic, AC. But sometime look around you at the folks who are everything that's expected of them, and who do everything that's expected of them. And what the reward is for it.
Then, try convincing them to get off the merry-go-round, from the outside.
The second one is better. I found this one to be pretty far from my point. Next time I'll give the Slashdot folks a transcript.
Which means the licensing must work, because a binding requirement rather than just faith would be more likely to keep things fair. In this case, the licensing must be primarily based upon contract law, a departure from Open Source, and must be based on terms that themselves depart from Open Source.
I put up the slides. Again, they are here. I can't confess to much patience with the tl;dr crowd.
There's a really big learning curve if different people are to implement each turn. Much larger than for software, because gaining the knowledge requires all of that expensive test equipment. $50K for a shop is really rock-bottom, new quality tools cost more than $50K each.
Crowdfunding has been the most successful implementation of sponsoring hardware implementation, but it's a chancy thing. We have held off on crowdfunding until we have a design that actually works. Then, funding can cover manufacturing rather than design, and there is a high probability that people will actually get the reward they pay for.