There's no such thing as "safe". PERIOD. Safety is an illusion. A lie we tell to ourselves because we want to avoid facing how much reality actually sucks.
Interacting with other people is always going to contain a modicum of danger. As a society we know this and on some level (mostly unconsciously) we agree to it. We then tell ourselves that the ones we're dealing with at the moment are "much less dangerous", and apply the term "safe" to them. Which is reinforced if they don't attempt to kill us.
I know, I know. It's a dark, atavistic, antisocial and generally depressing way of looking at human social interaction. But, with only momentary reprieves from sterling specimens of mankind, it's probably the smartest, most enlightened way to get through your life without some stupid sonofabitch ending it prematurely...
How are you supposed to win a firefight when the other guy is standing behind a 6 inch steel plate and firing a minigun, and all you have is a slingshot without a rock?
So you completely reject the concept of deterrence?
The fact is, a shot that is never fired is a shot avoided.
And even a guy in level 3 armor with a helmet and an automatic assault rifle is going to be too busy flopping around on the ground if you happen to shoot him in the face.
You see a good guy with a gun can only reliably stop a bad guy with a gun if the good guy has greater range.
Incorrect and a failure to grasp the dynamics of a combat situation.
Declaring range alone is the only metric of "reliability", is like trying to compare muzzle velocities, and declaring the higher muzzel velocity the "winner". Even if you're talking about a hundreth or thousandth of a second. Which is fully enough time for two people to "simultaneously" shoot one another.
Committing suicide isn't illegal. Trying to commit suicide and FAILING is illegal.
I hate to be a callous dick about it. (Well, not really.) I don't want the sort of invasive control over someone's life that would be necessitated to prevent actual suicides. Sure, it might decrease firearm suicides somewhat. But it will simply drive a portion of that population to other forms of suicide.
Knife attacks. Acid attacks. Truck-Of-Peace attacks. Grooming gangs prostituting children. Honor killings. FGM No-go zones where you could be mobbed to death. And yeah, ALL IN FIRST-WORLD COUNTRIES.
Sure. VIBRANT! And open too! Just don't use mean words on Twitter OR YOU GO TO JAIL!
There's also a sick "copycat" culture in the US as well as a fixation on the concept of fame...
Basically, it boils down to a nationwide "talent search" for "The Next Jackass" with a bunch of maladjusted, narcissistic fuckboys doing stupid, antisocial shit, and the guy behind him going "HOLD MUH BEER!".
Can you name one such "real capitalism" that was "worse than Maoist China"?
No. Of course they can't.
Like every other good little socialist sheeple, this kind of crap just falls out of their mouth, and then they get OFFENDED when people ask for actual data to back them up.
And please, try to come up with a reasoned argument why some new firearm law that isn't already on the books (INCLUDING CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS) would have stopped this event. Especially in light of the massive problem of illegally owned firearms.
Some people have actually been indoctrinated with this shit.
They believe in it the way Bible Literalists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. The way anti-gunners think a "Gun Free Zone" sign will protect them from a crazy. The way rabid Leftists think "Socialism" might have failed every OTHER time it was tried, but somehow, this time, it'll be DIFFERENT!
Again, this is what a sealed reactor unit encased in a ferrocrete sarcophagus is for.
And no, one of these wouldn't make ANY sort of bomb. A bomb is about generating a runaway reaction. MSRs are generally safe by design. Take away power? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber. Reaction destabilizes and the reactor begins to run away? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber. Someone tries cracking the sealed shell? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber.
If you have a unitized, sealed device, yes. "easy"/"simple" is how you describe placing them. Today's reactor facilities have only a couple percent of overall space dedicated to the actual reactor. The rest is a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine of overlapping failsafe systems.
If you're able to create a reactor unit the size of a semi-trailer, where you drop it, plumb it and walk away? Compared to current devices? EMINENTLY simple.
As for "cheap"? At this point, I don't know. Because the anti-nuke crowd is determined to sue everyone for everything at every opportunity, and it vastly skews all pricing models. Still, on a mass-produced system, economy of scale becomes a thing and prices come down drastically.
Face the fact, you're violently against ANYTHING nuclear. That doesn't mean the concept, overall, has failed. Merely that the technology needs to grow beyond the current generation. But you're terrified that this technological innovation will "steal your soul".
So you'll produce things that: * Can't be recycled * Produce megatons of waste * Can't EVER provide 100% of this planet's power needs.
Slashdot Mirror
"An armed society is a safe society."
No. An armed society is an armed society.
There's no such thing as "safe". PERIOD.
Safety is an illusion. A lie we tell to ourselves because we want to avoid facing how much reality actually sucks.
Interacting with other people is always going to contain a modicum of danger.
As a society we know this and on some level (mostly unconsciously) we agree to it.
We then tell ourselves that the ones we're dealing with at the moment are "much less dangerous", and apply the term "safe" to them.
Which is reinforced if they don't attempt to kill us.
I know, I know. It's a dark, atavistic, antisocial and generally depressing way of looking at human social interaction.
But, with only momentary reprieves from sterling specimens of mankind, it's probably the smartest, most enlightened way to get through your life without some stupid sonofabitch ending it prematurely...
But! But!
How are you supposed to win a firefight when the other guy is standing behind a 6 inch steel plate and firing a minigun, and all you have is a slingshot without a rock?
Good point!
So you completely reject the concept of deterrence?
The fact is, a shot that is never fired is a shot avoided.
And even a guy in level 3 armor with a helmet and an automatic assault rifle is going to be too busy flopping around on the ground if you happen to shoot him in the face.
Usually in a shooting situation, it's already clear who the perp is BEFORE anyone else pulls out a gun to drill them.
You see a good guy with a gun can only reliably stop a bad guy with a gun if the good guy has greater range.
Incorrect and a failure to grasp the dynamics of a combat situation.
Declaring range alone is the only metric of "reliability", is like trying to compare muzzle velocities, and declaring the higher muzzel velocity the "winner". Even if you're talking about a hundreth or thousandth of a second. Which is fully enough time for two people to "simultaneously" shoot one another.
Depends on how you define a "mass shooting".
Committing suicide isn't illegal.
Trying to commit suicide and FAILING is illegal.
I hate to be a callous dick about it.
(Well, not really.)
I don't want the sort of invasive control over someone's life that would be necessitated to prevent actual suicides.
Sure, it might decrease firearm suicides somewhat.
But it will simply drive a portion of that population to other forms of suicide.
Sure they do.
Knife attacks.
Acid attacks.
Truck-Of-Peace attacks.
Grooming gangs prostituting children.
Honor killings.
FGM
No-go zones where you could be mobbed to death.
And yeah, ALL IN FIRST-WORLD COUNTRIES.
Sure. VIBRANT!
And open too! Just don't use mean words on Twitter OR YOU GO TO JAIL!
Wake the fuck up.
Citation needed.
And, if it was true (which it isn't) explain why most of the places in the country with the highest homicide rates have the strictest gun laws...
There's also a sick "copycat" culture in the US as well as a fixation on the concept of fame...
Basically, it boils down to a nationwide "talent search" for "The Next Jackass" with a bunch of maladjusted, narcissistic fuckboys doing stupid, antisocial shit, and the guy behind him going "HOLD MUH BEER!".
Can you name one such "real capitalism" that was "worse than Maoist China"?
No. Of course they can't.
Like every other good little socialist sheeple, this kind of crap just falls out of their mouth, and then they get OFFENDED when people ask for actual data to back them up.
Ah yes. The "Define this how I want it defined, and ignore all the failures from faithful implementations in the past."
Fuck you.
You do NOT have a right to the fruits of another individual's labor.
That's because your understanding of war doctrine is stuck in the 1700's.
In the 21st Century, nobody stands across a field from their enemy and trades volleys anymore.
Asymmetric (guerilla) warfare is the tactical doctrine du jour.
And trying to fight a guerilla war IN YOUR OWN HOME COUNTRY is damn near impossible.
Because an insurgent could, quite literally, be ANYONE.
It's also a security nightmare for those in power.
Most security details have problems staving off a single, determined shooter.
Think about the problems of trying to defend a high value target against hundreds, or possibly THOUSANDS of independently motivated shooters.
And sure, the US military consists of about 2 million people, all told.
NRA membership is at 6 million.
And there are more than 330 MILLION *legal* firearms in this country.
And that's JUST using the mistaken assumption that the law enforcement and military personnel would be on the government's side in such a situation.
Howsabout "no".
Even in the time of the Founding Fathers, they were aware of the march of technology.
Things like muzzle-loaders were the most common weapons, as they were some of the easiest and cheapest to mass produce.
But repeating rifles and the like pre-existed the US as a sovereign state by over a century.
So why weren't they more common?
Why doesn't everyone drive a Lamborghini today?
No. Actually it cannot.
Because the 2nd Amendment was never about granting rights of arms to a military.
The average Venezuelan is STARVING right now.
And there was just a recent mass shooting in Australia.
So that sorta screws your argument.
Ah, another term whose over-use/misuse has robbed it of any actual or rhetorical impact.
You're right. The 2nd Amendment, against the law, is already infringed, as it should not be.
And no, socialism isn't drinking water or any of that.
Social programs != Socialism.
If you'd actually taken that civics course, instead of Social Studies, you'd ACTUALLY understand this.
Thing is, the US would be a Republican mono-party state if we locked up all the crazies.
The Democrats wouldn't have a voter base anymore.
The hole in your argument is that you have no way to guarantee him not having a gun.
Even if we confiscated every last one of the 330+ MILLION legal firearms in the country.
Sejong and Hwaseong would like to differ.
And please, try to come up with a reasoned argument why some new firearm law that isn't already on the books (INCLUDING CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS) would have stopped this event. Especially in light of the massive problem of illegally owned firearms.
Don't worry. I'm patient...
Never ascribe to malice...
Some people have actually been indoctrinated with this shit.
They believe in it the way Bible Literalists believe that the world is only a few thousand years old.
The way anti-gunners think a "Gun Free Zone" sign will protect them from a crazy.
The way rabid Leftists think "Socialism" might have failed every OTHER time it was tried, but somehow, this time, it'll be DIFFERENT!
Again, this is what a sealed reactor unit encased in a ferrocrete sarcophagus is for.
And no, one of these wouldn't make ANY sort of bomb.
A bomb is about generating a runaway reaction.
MSRs are generally safe by design.
Take away power? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber.
Reaction destabilizes and the reactor begins to run away? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber.
Someone tries cracking the sealed shell? It shuts down and dumps its fuel into a dump tank away from the reaction chamber.
Noticing a pattern here?
If you have a unitized, sealed device, yes. "easy"/"simple" is how you describe placing them.
Today's reactor facilities have only a couple percent of overall space dedicated to the actual reactor. The rest is a gigantic Rube Goldberg machine of overlapping failsafe systems.
If you're able to create a reactor unit the size of a semi-trailer, where you drop it, plumb it and walk away?
Compared to current devices? EMINENTLY simple.
As for "cheap"? At this point, I don't know. Because the anti-nuke crowd is determined to sue everyone for everything at every opportunity, and it vastly skews all pricing models.
Still, on a mass-produced system, economy of scale becomes a thing and prices come down drastically.
Face the fact, you're violently against ANYTHING nuclear. That doesn't mean the concept, overall, has failed.
Merely that the technology needs to grow beyond the current generation.
But you're terrified that this technological innovation will "steal your soul".
So you'll produce things that:
* Can't be recycled
* Produce megatons of waste
* Can't EVER provide 100% of this planet's power needs.
Then you'll declare it a success.
LOL! Point taken!