in doing it loudily and clumsily, rather than discreetly and quietly
i didn't ascribe pure motivations to teenaged script kiddies, i ascribed stupidity. of course, some of them are still downright evil in their efforts. but still stupid. better to catch what they are doing now, while they are dumb about it and easier to catch, no?
find a flaw in the system, the flaw will be found by someone else
the nice thing about kids being the perps is that there is no more nefarious purpose than "i did for the lulz". do you really think if these teenagers weren't loudly and clumsily exploiting security holes that someone else with much more nefarious purposes is not expoliting the same security holes quietly and discreetly?
consider kids hacking websites to be that website's security research division. the flaws are found, the flaws are fixed, everyone makes out better. thank god for loud dumb scrit kiddies
seriously, script kiddies are a blessing. they provide incentive to harden your website, incentive that some websites don't have and apparently need
the problem with electornic voting is perception. if people perceive their vote is being tampered with, this matters more than the truth of the matter
passions are high in an election. people get upset if they lose. they seize on anything that feeds into their perceptions, and electronic voting is too black box: votes go in, sausage come out, and who knows what happens in the middle
when an election is over, people have to know the vote was fair. knowing the vote was fair is not a matter of trusting a talking head on a tv screen or a poorly paid government worker. its about how they feel about their voting experience. paper you can trust. you can't intrisincally trust a black box process
electornic voting should be abandoned. its a bad idea
the entire country is a monopoly. russian government is nothing different than a mafia, complete with goons murdering outspoken reporters and opposition voices, even overseas dissidents. russian democracy is dead. that the russian government should have any apparatus called a "Federal Antimonopoly Service" is a pretty good definition of sarcasm
tell the site you are scraping, anonymously, that someone is scraping their site. it is plausibly anonymous, since someone out on the wild could notice. your boss will get an angry email and have your ip blocked from further scraping. then tell the hosting company, anonymously, that multiple free accounts are being used. this might not work out as well, since this is info a random person could not get. but you can hint the hoster in anonymous ways that allows them to discover the deceit
where you're some sort of morlock in a land of eloi
the truth is, the ones with the guns are always the fodder, they are never the ones in charge. the warlord in charge in somalia, in afghanistan: he doesn't carry a gun. his bodyguards do. his cannon fodder: the guys with guns;-)
i'm glad you embrace your grunt status
but darling, you're really not the one in charge. the one who loves the gun never is. his love of the gun permanently retards his career potential. the one who trusts to the mind is the one in charge
but like i said, whatever you need to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. when you are useful you will be called to serve us, without the guns
and set your browser to identify yourself as say, blackberry's browser. opera can do this sort of cloaking through an easy menu interface. large sites you visit will automatically downstep your content. otherwise, purposefully only visit sites that are mobile friendly versions of the main sites. for example, slashot's mobile friendly site is http://slashdot.org/palm
one wonders at how you started with coming to grips with shooting a pig to feeling proud that you can outshoot the servants of your government
unless you don't trust the government, it doesn't represent you? for if it represented your interests, why the need to have such a potent force to use against its servants?
hmmm. such alienation. such potent firepower. necessary though, right?
because its all you trust to keep the world as you know it safe, right?
you need that power, you need that potent, visceral force in your life to feel secure, right?
i've got your number;-)
you've come a long, long way from that little kid facing a charging pig
and i'd say the bulk the end of that trip has been to territory of thougth about your relationship with your weapons and with your society which frankly, renders you unfit to own that firepower
you're WAYYY beyond hunting and home protection
but don't worry friend, weak, useless nongunowners like me, we employ those cops you can outshoot, we've got your number
you're nothing new in world history. men like you have come and gone many times. we know what you're about, and the challenges we face in subduing you. we've done it before, and we've built a society that doesn't need such craven viscerality to be constantly at our reminder to feel secure about our world
we see your firepower, we see your ammunition, and we see how you think. and all it means is we must deal with you as you and your mentality have been dealt with before, time and time throughout history: rise of the will to power through visceral force
don't you worry about it friend
we'll come and take your precious guns when the time is right;-)
in the hands of a well-trained police force and a military
not random assholes with feelings of absolute self-certainty
of course in the eyes of the gun lover, this makes me an advocate of fascism: police with guns, citizens without
but there's something wrong with that scenario: random assholes in the woods with guns are going to protect us from fascism? really?
the government will have a lot more firepower for one
but more importantly than that: the truth is, those who trust to will to power through force of arms are always the ones who are fascists in this world. its the same appeal to power through visceral force that drives one to love of gun and approval of fascism
the truth is, if fascism ever rises in the usa, it will be started by random assholes with guns in the woods, not in spite of them
you think you're the one in charge, because you have the gun. yup. perfect appeal to power through visceral force. your fodder for fascism. your mind and thinking processes are ripe for it
but even a more cutting truth than that is this: the ones with the guns are always the fodder, they are never the ones in charge. the warlord in charge in somalia, in afghanistan: he doesn't carry a gun. his bodyguards do. his cannon fodder: the guys with guns;-)
i'm glad you embrace your grunt status
but darling, you're really not the one in charge. the one loves the gun never is. the one who trusts to the mind is;-)
in the hands of a well-trained police force and a military
not random assholes with feelings of absolute self-certainty
of course in the eyes of the gun lover, this makes me an advocate of fascism: police with guns, citizens without
but there's something wrong with that scenario: random assholes in the woods with guns are going to protect us from fascism? really?
the government will have a lot more firepower for one
but more importantly than that: the truth is, those who trust to will to power through force of arms are always the ones who are fascists in this world. its the same appeal to power through visceral force that drives one to love of gun and approval of fascism
the truth is, if fascism ever rises in the usa, it will be started by random assholes with guns in the woods, not in spite of them
and the statistics situation is 100% real: people bring forth the most incredibly retarded biased statistics as "facts"
go ahead. list a heroic scenario of gun use. now list a tragic one. the tragic scenario: assign it a probability rate in your mind. it might even be lower than the probability of the heroic scenario. but i can imagine about 10 more tragic scenarios than i can for every heroic scenarios. so, overall, if i bring a gun into my house, i invite more tragedy than heroics
no feelings dude. just a prudent and logical exploration of scenario and probability
go ahead, do the same thought experiment in your mind, come to a different conclusion. please
"The fingerprint sensitive cabinet costs $300. Not rare, not expensive."
good, i'm glad. you seem to know a lot about statistics. tell me the ownership rate of those cabinets
oh, and tell me that the cabinet never fails, and that you have time for it to work effortlessly and noiselessly and without any time wasted as that robber opens your bedroom door, oh great infallible superhuman
oh and whats your aim like groggy and tired?
oh, and you can wake up on the slightest hint of noise?
oh, you have nightvision goggles?
oh, your judgment and thinking is razorsharp at 3 AM after waking up?
you go dude, you be the big hero with the big gun. you're infallible. nothing ever tragic will come of your unnecessary tool of death by your bedside. i'm 100% certian for you;-)
i can shoot myself ny mistake, i can have it wrestled away from me by an intruder, i can not get to it in time, i can be asleep the whole time, i can shoot my own son climbing in through the window in the dark having forgto his key, etc., etc.
all other technology, gun advocates can see the horrible failure rates and scenarios
but guns?
not guns. guns are absolutely infallible, no potential downside
of course, i should take it down, as any sane gun owner will tell you you don't want to give intelligence to a potential foe about what they face inside... unless you are applying purposeful misdirection. but why argue about real tactics in signaling your enemies when face to face with your absurd propaganda, right?
an alarm system. you know. door or window opens, alarm goes off, police come
or maybe a dog
of course, if ninjas are hellbent on drilling up through the bedrock and assassinating my entire family in 2 minutes, there's no real protection for me
damn! didn't think of that, better buy a gun
or better yet, a flame thrower!
i'm not nearly paranoid schizohrenic enough and pumping with manly certainty about my heroic infallibility!;-P
yes i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias further
i'm not going to appeal to your feelings. i'm going to ask you to look at the rate of use of a firearm in a typical firearm owning household, when it is used effectively to deter an intruder, versus not one scenario with a bad outcome, but 10 other scenarios, or 100 other scenarios, or a thousand other scenarios where a gun can be used tragically, rather than heroically. and i would like you to quantify, fairly, in your mind, the rate of heroic use of gun ownership, versus the tragic use of gun ownership. the rates of tragedy might even be much lower. but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. such that the rate of tragedy is higher than the rate of heroism
i don't see how you could disagree with any of that. but, of course, i'm not going to reverse your bias in one little thread on slashdot, no matter what your own logic exercise might tell you
with a lower chance of dying than you. simply because i have realized an implement whose only use in a household context is the ending of another human life is simply unnecessary
i don't live my life as fully as you do, but more fully, as i have one less UNNECESSARY and DANGEROUS complication to worry about. unless of course, you're my neighbor. then the risk to my life is increased because of the extra risk you expose to those around you. which i'm certain you will disagree with, since you are omnipotent being who never makes any mistakes, right?
i mean, i can put various man traps around my house to protect myself from robbers. it would make sense according to your rationale. also, because i know i will never ever trigger them myself by mistake, or a family member, or anyone else who is not an intruder. it won't ever happen. how do i know this?
i know this because i have a time machine which goes into the future, and sees all possible outcomes from the unnecessary and dangerous additions i have made to my life
you need knives for daily household chores. the accidents are overwhelmed by necessity. you don't actually need a gun for anything. you can conduct your household in complete absence of a gun
peanuts are, indeed, completely avoidable and unncessary. people do, in fact, avoid them. same with coconuts. anyone with an allergy to any of these foods knows enough to navigate life avoiding them. and those few rare people who can have a fatal anaphylactic shock carry around adrenaline shots. compare those few rare people with the allergic response 100% of humans have to hot metal projectile insertion
as for cars, you could take a bus, or the train, but for most people, a car is indispensible. you simply cannot hold a job without one. so again, neceessity, which doesn't exist with a gun, outweighs the accidents
so these scenarios are an inadequate allegory to gun ownership
very rare and expensive. doesn't apply as a lesson in general about gun ownership. but one would hope ownership of this expensive rare fire arm increases for those who think guns helps them
"Statistical link or shut the fuck up. Feelings aren't facts."
yes i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias
i'm not going to appeal to your feelings. i'm going to ask you to look at the rate of use of a firearm in a typical firearm owning household, when it is used effectively to deter an intruder, versus not one scenario with a bad outcome, but 10 other scenarios, or 100 other scenarios, or a thousand other scenarios where a gun can be used tragically, rather than heroically. and i would like you to quantify, fairly, in your mind, the rate of heroic use of gun ownership, with the tragic use of gun ownership. the rates of tragedy might even be much lower. but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. i don't see how you could disagree with that
"I have been to 15 competitions where there were over 400 fully armed people competing with each other in their skill at shooting. In a situation where we are all competing, filled with hypothetical testosterone and obviously laying out our manhood against each other, you would think that you could find at least one instance of one competitor shooting another. You can't. In fact, you can't even find an instance of an accidental shooting injury at a match."
well, yeah. why do you think this example is instructive to the situation of a gun laying around the house?
just made the devil horns symbol and held it in front of the boars face while going "neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" until it fell asleep
knowing that was before you, you msut reexamine yourself and conclude you're a monster
and then, in the bottomless pits of your tearful self-loathing, remember you have a way out in the loaded gun by your bed
have a nice day...i'm joking of course, but in all seriousness, that's why i think loaded guns in the house are lame: for every scenario where they are used on an intruder successfully, there are 10 other scenarios where they are used on the house occupants: self-inflicted in a moment of despondency, self-inflicted by a child, used on an inhabitant in the dark sneaking in the window because they forgot their keys, used on a wife in the heat of a giant flare up, used on someone while drunk or high, etc. oh these scenarios will never happen to you? you are a superhuman impervious to basic human weaknesses for all time?
guns in fact do solve many of the problems gun proponents claim they do. its just that guns create more problems than they solve. and you never hear gun proponents examine gun tragedies. oh you lock them up? so your kid can't get the keys anyways and they are not curious? so you have the time to retrive your gun in the locked case as the robber wakes you opening the bedroom door?
just admit the tragedies outweigh the benefits already gun proponents
Slashdot Mirror
minefield? really?
open source may rule over traditional development in many ways, but one way corporations beat open source is in the marketing department
if they open sourced cars, would we get the chevy deathtrap?
open source candy bars, we have the hersheys kidney stones
in this day and age of subtle exploits and privacy gotchas around every url, someone at mozilla decides to call their browser the "minefield"
i know its just a pre-beta preview, but still, its a marketing. hard. fail.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94309881&show_article=1
you'll get a town full of people who have a desperate and ego-driven need to be seen as smart
kind of like joining mensa. anyone who needs that sort of attention and reinforcement is not exactly niels bohr
the smart guys in any room are always low key and in the back, not attention whores
in doing it loudily and clumsily, rather than discreetly and quietly
i didn't ascribe pure motivations to teenaged script kiddies, i ascribed stupidity. of course, some of them are still downright evil in their efforts. but still stupid. better to catch what they are doing now, while they are dumb about it and easier to catch, no?
indicating the average age of the slashdotter reading this story is over 39
find a flaw in the system, the flaw will be found by someone else
the nice thing about kids being the perps is that there is no more nefarious purpose than "i did for the lulz". do you really think if these teenagers weren't loudly and clumsily exploiting security holes that someone else with much more nefarious purposes is not expoliting the same security holes quietly and discreetly?
consider kids hacking websites to be that website's security research division. the flaws are found, the flaws are fixed, everyone makes out better. thank god for loud dumb scrit kiddies
seriously, script kiddies are a blessing. they provide incentive to harden your website, incentive that some websites don't have and apparently need
the problem with electornic voting is perception. if people perceive their vote is being tampered with, this matters more than the truth of the matter
passions are high in an election. people get upset if they lose. they seize on anything that feeds into their perceptions, and electronic voting is too black box: votes go in, sausage come out, and who knows what happens in the middle
when an election is over, people have to know the vote was fair. knowing the vote was fair is not a matter of trusting a talking head on a tv screen or a poorly paid government worker. its about how they feel about their voting experience. paper you can trust. you can't intrisincally trust a black box process
electornic voting should be abandoned. its a bad idea
the entire country is a monopoly. russian government is nothing different than a mafia, complete with goons murdering outspoken reporters and opposition voices, even overseas dissidents. russian democracy is dead. that the russian government should have any apparatus called a "Federal Antimonopoly Service" is a pretty good definition of sarcasm
tell the site you are scraping, anonymously, that someone is scraping their site. it is plausibly anonymous, since someone out on the wild could notice. your boss will get an angry email and have your ip blocked from further scraping. then tell the hosting company, anonymously, that multiple free accounts are being used. this might not work out as well, since this is info a random person could not get. but you can hint the hoster in anonymous ways that allows them to discover the deceit
where you're some sort of morlock in a land of eloi
the truth is, the ones with the guns are always the fodder, they are never the ones in charge. the warlord in charge in somalia, in afghanistan: he doesn't carry a gun. his bodyguards do. his cannon fodder: the guys with guns ;-)
i'm glad you embrace your grunt status
but darling, you're really not the one in charge. the one who loves the gun never is. his love of the gun permanently retards his career potential. the one who trusts to the mind is the one in charge
but like i said, whatever you need to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. when you are useful you will be called to serve us, without the guns
force text only. no flash or images
and set your browser to identify yourself as say, blackberry's browser. opera can do this sort of cloaking through an easy menu interface. large sites you visit will automatically downstep your content. otherwise, purposefully only visit sites that are mobile friendly versions of the main sites. for example, slashot's mobile friendly site is http://slashdot.org/palm
one wonders at how you started with coming to grips with shooting a pig to feeling proud that you can outshoot the servants of your government
unless you don't trust the government, it doesn't represent you? for if it represented your interests, why the need to have such a potent force to use against its servants?
hmmm. such alienation. such potent firepower. necessary though, right?
because its all you trust to keep the world as you know it safe, right?
you need that power, you need that potent, visceral force in your life to feel secure, right?
i've got your number ;-)
you've come a long, long way from that little kid facing a charging pig
and i'd say the bulk the end of that trip has been to territory of thougth about your relationship with your weapons and with your society which frankly, renders you unfit to own that firepower
you're WAYYY beyond hunting and home protection
but don't worry friend, weak, useless nongunowners like me, we employ those cops you can outshoot, we've got your number
you're nothing new in world history. men like you have come and gone many times. we know what you're about, and the challenges we face in subduing you. we've done it before, and we've built a society that doesn't need such craven viscerality to be constantly at our reminder to feel secure about our world
we see your firepower, we see your ammunition, and we see how you think. and all it means is we must deal with you as you and your mentality have been dealt with before, time and time throughout history: rise of the will to power through visceral force
don't you worry about it friend
we'll come and take your precious guns when the time is right ;-)
guns have valid use
in the hands of a well-trained police force and a military
not random assholes with feelings of absolute self-certainty
of course in the eyes of the gun lover, this makes me an advocate of fascism: police with guns, citizens without
but there's something wrong with that scenario: random assholes in the woods with guns are going to protect us from fascism? really?
the government will have a lot more firepower for one
but more importantly than that: the truth is, those who trust to will to power through force of arms are always the ones who are fascists in this world. its the same appeal to power through visceral force that drives one to love of gun and approval of fascism
the truth is, if fascism ever rises in the usa, it will be started by random assholes with guns in the woods, not in spite of them
you think you're the one in charge, because you have the gun. yup. perfect appeal to power through visceral force. your fodder for fascism. your mind and thinking processes are ripe for it
but even a more cutting truth than that is this: the ones with the guns are always the fodder, they are never the ones in charge. the warlord in charge in somalia, in afghanistan: he doesn't carry a gun. his bodyguards do. his cannon fodder: the guys with guns ;-)
i'm glad you embrace your grunt status
but darling, you're really not the one in charge. the one loves the gun never is. the one who trusts to the mind is ;-)
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
in the hands of a well-trained police force and a military
not random assholes with feelings of absolute self-certainty
of course in the eyes of the gun lover, this makes me an advocate of fascism: police with guns, citizens without
but there's something wrong with that scenario: random assholes in the woods with guns are going to protect us from fascism? really?
the government will have a lot more firepower for one
but more importantly than that: the truth is, those who trust to will to power through force of arms are always the ones who are fascists in this world. its the same appeal to power through visceral force that drives one to love of gun and approval of fascism
the truth is, if fascism ever rises in the usa, it will be started by random assholes with guns in the woods, not in spite of them
what's the fucking idiot for?
insecure?
insecure and with a gun?
hmmmm
maybe i should take it from you
me and the police force with better guns, and better trained, that i pay for
i don't trust random arrogantly self-certain assholes with guns
so hold tight to your little gun
we're coming to take it from you ;-)
xoxoxoxoxoxox
but i guess that makes a FASCIST BITCH
truly, if i do not trust random, and as you demonstrate, angry and arrogantly certain assholes with guns, i'm a fascist
but silly me, a world like somalia, where nothing but the rule of the gun applies, strikes me as slightly inferior to a well-armed police force
no: i do not trust angry assholes, as your words demonstrate, with guns
and we will come and take them from you
our better armed, better trained police force that we pay for
sweet dreams, angry well-armed retard
this weak bitch pwns you ;-)
xoxoxoxoxoxox
and the statistics situation is 100% real: people bring forth the most incredibly retarded biased statistics as "facts"
go ahead. list a heroic scenario of gun use. now list a tragic one. the tragic scenario: assign it a probability rate in your mind. it might even be lower than the probability of the heroic scenario. but i can imagine about 10 more tragic scenarios than i can for every heroic scenarios. so, overall, if i bring a gun into my house, i invite more tragedy than heroics
no feelings dude. just a prudent and logical exploration of scenario and probability
go ahead, do the same thought experiment in your mind, come to a different conclusion. please
"The fingerprint sensitive cabinet costs $300. Not rare, not expensive."
good, i'm glad. you seem to know a lot about statistics. tell me the ownership rate of those cabinets
oh, and tell me that the cabinet never fails, and that you have time for it to work effortlessly and noiselessly and without any time wasted as that robber opens your bedroom door, oh great infallible superhuman
oh and whats your aim like groggy and tired?
oh, and you can wake up on the slightest hint of noise?
oh, you have nightvision goggles?
oh, your judgment and thinking is razorsharp at 3 AM after waking up?
you go dude, you be the big hero with the big gun. you're infallible. nothing ever tragic will come of your unnecessary tool of death by your bedside. i'm 100% certian for you ;-)
but a gun
IT NEVER FAILS!
IT HAS NO DOWNSIDE!
i can shoot myself ny mistake, i can have it wrestled away from me by an intruder, i can not get to it in time, i can be asleep the whole time, i can shoot my own son climbing in through the window in the dark having forgto his key, etc., etc.
all other technology, gun advocates can see the horrible failure rates and scenarios
but guns?
not guns. guns are absolutely infallible, no potential downside
LOL
it advertises an alarm system
of course, i should take it down, as any sane gun owner will tell you you don't want to give intelligence to a potential foe about what they face inside... unless you are applying purposeful misdirection. but why argue about real tactics in signaling your enemies when face to face with your absurd propaganda, right?
an alarm system. you know. door or window opens, alarm goes off, police come
or maybe a dog
of course, if ninjas are hellbent on drilling up through the bedrock and assassinating my entire family in 2 minutes, there's no real protection for me
damn! didn't think of that, better buy a gun
or better yet, a flame thrower!
i'm not nearly paranoid schizohrenic enough and pumping with manly certainty about my heroic infallibility! ;-P
yes i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias further
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
i'm not going to appeal to your feelings. i'm going to ask you to look at the rate of use of a firearm in a typical firearm owning household, when it is used effectively to deter an intruder, versus not one scenario with a bad outcome, but 10 other scenarios, or 100 other scenarios, or a thousand other scenarios where a gun can be used tragically, rather than heroically. and i would like you to quantify, fairly, in your mind, the rate of heroic use of gun ownership, versus the tragic use of gun ownership. the rates of tragedy might even be much lower. but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. such that the rate of tragedy is higher than the rate of heroism
i don't see how you could disagree with any of that. but, of course, i'm not going to reverse your bias in one little thread on slashdot, no matter what your own logic exercise might tell you
with a lower chance of dying than you. simply because i have realized an implement whose only use in a household context is the ending of another human life is simply unnecessary
i don't live my life as fully as you do, but more fully, as i have one less UNNECESSARY and DANGEROUS complication to worry about. unless of course, you're my neighbor. then the risk to my life is increased because of the extra risk you expose to those around you. which i'm certain you will disagree with, since you are omnipotent being who never makes any mistakes, right?
i mean, i can put various man traps around my house to protect myself from robbers. it would make sense according to your rationale. also, because i know i will never ever trigger them myself by mistake, or a family member, or anyone else who is not an intruder. it won't ever happen. how do i know this?
i know this because i have a time machine which goes into the future, and sees all possible outcomes from the unnecessary and dangerous additions i have made to my life
(snicker)
you need knives for daily household chores. the accidents are overwhelmed by necessity. you don't actually need a gun for anything. you can conduct your household in complete absence of a gun
peanuts are, indeed, completely avoidable and unncessary. people do, in fact, avoid them. same with coconuts. anyone with an allergy to any of these foods knows enough to navigate life avoiding them. and those few rare people who can have a fatal anaphylactic shock carry around adrenaline shots. compare those few rare people with the allergic response 100% of humans have to hot metal projectile insertion
as for cars, you could take a bus, or the train, but for most people, a car is indispensible. you simply cannot hold a job without one. so again, neceessity, which doesn't exist with a gun, outweighs the accidents
so these scenarios are an inadequate allegory to gun ownership
i don't know why you think your anecodte is supposed to tell us that a child around a gun is foolproof though
very rare and expensive. doesn't apply as a lesson in general about gun ownership. but one would hope ownership of this expensive rare fire arm increases for those who think guns helps them
"Statistical link or shut the fuck up. Feelings aren't facts."
yes i've been down this road of dueling statistics with gun ownership advocates. its a short retarded road which does not illuminate and entrenches people in their preestablished bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
i'm not going to appeal to your feelings. i'm going to ask you to look at the rate of use of a firearm in a typical firearm owning household, when it is used effectively to deter an intruder, versus not one scenario with a bad outcome, but 10 other scenarios, or 100 other scenarios, or a thousand other scenarios where a gun can be used tragically, rather than heroically. and i would like you to quantify, fairly, in your mind, the rate of heroic use of gun ownership, with the tragic use of gun ownership. the rates of tragedy might even be much lower. but the tragic scenarios certainly are more numerous than the heroic ones. i don't see how you could disagree with that
"I have been to 15 competitions where there were over 400 fully armed people competing with each other in their skill at shooting. In a situation where we are all competing, filled with hypothetical testosterone and obviously laying out our manhood against each other, you would think that you could find at least one instance of one competitor shooting another. You can't. In fact, you can't even find an instance of an accidental shooting injury at a match."
well, yeah. why do you think this example is instructive to the situation of a gun laying around the house?
just made the devil horns symbol and held it in front of the boars face while going "neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" until it fell asleep
knowing that was before you, you msut reexamine yourself and conclude you're a monster
and then, in the bottomless pits of your tearful self-loathing, remember you have a way out in the loaded gun by your bed
have a nice day ...i'm joking of course, but in all seriousness, that's why i think loaded guns in the house are lame: for every scenario where they are used on an intruder successfully, there are 10 other scenarios where they are used on the house occupants: self-inflicted in a moment of despondency, self-inflicted by a child, used on an inhabitant in the dark sneaking in the window because they forgot their keys, used on a wife in the heat of a giant flare up, used on someone while drunk or high, etc. oh these scenarios will never happen to you? you are a superhuman impervious to basic human weaknesses for all time?
guns in fact do solve many of the problems gun proponents claim they do. its just that guns create more problems than they solve. and you never hear gun proponents examine gun tragedies. oh you lock them up? so your kid can't get the keys anyways and they are not curious? so you have the time to retrive your gun in the locked case as the robber wakes you opening the bedroom door?
just admit the tragedies outweigh the benefits already gun proponents