Attention to detail almost always matters. Knowing you're going into an interview you should be paying attention to the details. Failing to do so is a red flag.
I agree about the arbitrariness of the classifications, particularly for "sexy" brands. I suspect that a chunk of that comes from the image of AK as an assault weapon rather than as a "useful" weapon, for example.
How much of the distinction in those cases is based on ease of conversion to full-auto? That puts me far outside of my knowledge space.
Regarding the "moot" between semi-auto hunting & military, I largely agree as well, though I see the five round (or some other small number with slowish reload) restriction as critical to the point of the civilian safety
I agree on the wackiness of the AR winding up strange - it's clearly politically motivated, rather than evidence-based; though the AR is particularly easy to convert from semi- to full-auto.
The general structure of unrestricted/restricted/prohibited works pretty well though: unrestricted is hunting weapons, restricted is civilian security forces and target shooting-only, and prohibited is "we don't want them on our soil - there's no civilian use". That setup seems to make sense, modulo the semi-autos that wind up restricted for no good reason.
What makes you think clueless? As written they enforce safe storage (which has shown a statistically significant reduction in accidental shootings and suicides), and limited "spree" shooting, while allowing legitimate uses such as hunting and target shooting.
And even if ashamed, the guard is there so you remember it's humans we put in harm's way. Don't take the humanity away from the memorials. Remember the cost.
No. The point of a ceremonial guard is to stand by the monument as part of the memorial. He's part of the constant vigil we keep to remember the past sacrifices made. He's not "guarding" the monument against a threat, except perhaps that of loss of memory.
Dude, have you any clues to rub together at all? You need to understand risk management much better.
The chances of attack on a ceremonial guard in Ottawa are in the "crazy psychopath" realm, not "trained enemy action". Furthermore, a rifle is a purely offensive weapon - they have no defensive capability against a surprise. Let's start there and go through your points.
If our government finds tracking bullets to be an arduous task, perhaps they are not qualified to have them in the first place.
That's just vacuous. Tracking increases costs - tracking issues of an unusable, yet important-to-track resource makes issuing that resource a total waste. And on't think of just what happens when you sign out the clip. Think of what happens when one goes missing - that's where the costs then seriously escalate. Don't make the ceremonial guard take on the onerous load unless you absolutely must.
What if the gun got dropped and discharged?
Then it's a miserable piece of shit. Only shitty guns discharge when dropped. Spend the money to get them a decent fucking gun, especially if they're your honor guard. There's no honor in standing there with a shitty gun. (The gun imparts no particular honor IMO, but it should at least be decent.)
Do you use firearms much? In real situations? Like even out at the range or in the woods? A loaded firearm is *always* a hazard. One you mitigate with practice and experience, but nevertheless *always* a hazard.
As for the "honour" being diluted? The ceremonial guard weapons are typically of historical interest, and represent their purpose for ceremony - there is much honour in being the ceremonial guard with a ceremonial weapon.
What if you stopped for a picture and someone took your gun
Took your gun? Seriously? TOOK YOUR GUN? What the actual FUCK? You don't put the fucking thing down
And you keep the psychopath from grabbing it from your hands how? Seriously, this is a ceremonial position in a public square. Stop thinking like a Rambo.
Number one thing for you to learn is that accidents are much more common than enemy action when on ceremonial duty. So plan for the accidents, not for the armed assault.
I'm going to stop there as the next few points you make cast insults at the brave men and women who serve our armed forces. Grow up.
Incorrect. The restriction to 5 rounds is for semi-automatic center-fire rifles or handguns. There is no restriction for non-semiautomatic center-fire rifles or handguns. Clarification at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-...
The shooter's weapon has been reported as a Winchester.30-.30 model 94, lever action. It's capacity is 8 rounds, and is perfectly legal to own in Canada, given your Possession and Acquisition License.
The point remains the same however - our firearms restraints make it difficult to go on a broad shooting rampage. Reloading the model 94 is a royal PITA (I know, it was my go-to deer hunting rifle for several years). Even with practice I doubt the 30 second reload time widely quoted.
And as I'm forced to interject in any gun-control talk, the main threat from guns is not a wack-job shooter, though they get all the press. The main threat is accidental/unintentional discharge by minors. The most critical change the US could make to its gun laws is to force (and enforce) unloaded storage with ammunition kept separate.
And on top of it, the fine is reasonable for what amounts to civil disobedience. It might or might not have been the way to protest, but the fine isn't insane, either way.
There is *certainly* a moral component. The money taxed is earned in part with tax-payer provided assets: roads, security infrastructure, various regulatory frameworks, a court system, and so on. Being part of a functioning western society and partaking of its infrastructural advantages costs sometime - we call that "taxes". Debating the level of taxes vs the benefits is certainly acceptable, but claiming there's no moral dimension is wrong.
Explain, in detail, how that works, please. I know no western taxation system in which the break to the next income level causes increased taxes at the level below. (Ok, I know a couple of cases involving claw-backs of benefits at the lowest tax bracket - those are errors that should be fixed, not the intent of the progressive taxation system).
You are mis-understanding the tax code. You only pay the higher rate on the amount *above* the cut line; The amount below the cut point is taxed at the lower rate. That's the very diffinition of progressive taxation. It's just the next dollar that gets taxed at the higher rate, not every dollar.
This is a *VERY* common mis-understanding of how the income tax rates work.
Had there been perfect response by armed teachers at every event this year, at most 37 deaths would have been prevented, though that's the upper bound of somehow stopping them before they even start. I don't care to speculate on how many accidents would be added by having firearms in classrooms. There *will* be moments of carelessness.
Bans aren't needed. Require trigger locks,and that they be stored them unloaded, and keep the ammo separate (and locked). Accidents drop hugely as do suicides (yes, you can defeat the system, but suicidal ideation tends to pass quickly, especially if you're futzing with a lock you don't have the keys to), Your base rates of gun related injuries and death drop. And the base rate totally overwhelms felon-on-non-felon murders and ill people who feel the need to shoot up the world.
You don't have to trust, you just have to make corruption too expensive. Count in small batches, on site, at close of voting, with volunteer observers from every person on the ballot. It works, it scales, and it limits the effectiveness of co-opting a few individuals, unlike *anything* to do with electronic voting.
The point is that you really don't have to trust the scrutineers: every party represented on the ballot has the right to have an observer present during the counting. Since each ballot box has relatively few ballots (500 or so), the count is quick. If your party can't muster a volunteer per 500 voters, you have deeper problems than vote fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Attention to detail almost always matters. Knowing you're going into an interview you should be paying attention to the details. Failing to do so is a red flag.
Asshat.
Good conversation.
I agree about the arbitrariness of the classifications, particularly for "sexy" brands. I suspect that a chunk of that comes from the image of AK as an assault weapon rather than as a "useful" weapon, for example.
How much of the distinction in those cases is based on ease of conversion to full-auto? That puts me far outside of my knowledge space.
Regarding the "moot" between semi-auto hunting & military, I largely agree as well, though I see the five round (or some other small number with slowish reload) restriction as critical to the point of the civilian safety
I agree on the wackiness of the AR winding up strange - it's clearly politically motivated, rather than evidence-based; though the AR is particularly easy to convert from semi- to full-auto.
The general structure of unrestricted/restricted/prohibited works pretty well though: unrestricted is hunting weapons, restricted is civilian security forces and target shooting-only, and prohibited is "we don't want them on our soil - there's no civilian use". That setup seems to make sense, modulo the semi-autos that wind up restricted for no good reason.
What would you regulate differently?
And even if ashamed, the guard is there so you remember it's humans we put in harm's way. Don't take the humanity away from the memorials. Remember the cost.
No. The point of a ceremonial guard is to stand by the monument as part of the memorial. He's part of the constant vigil we keep to remember the past sacrifices made. He's not "guarding" the monument against a threat, except perhaps that of loss of memory.
For a mod point. My kingdom for a mod point!
If our government finds tracking bullets to be an arduous task, perhaps they are not qualified to have them in the first place.
That's just vacuous. Tracking increases costs - tracking issues of an unusable, yet important-to-track resource makes issuing that resource a total waste. And on't think of just what happens when you sign out the clip. Think of what happens when one goes missing - that's where the costs then seriously escalate. Don't make the ceremonial guard take on the onerous load unless you absolutely must.
What if the gun got dropped and discharged?
Then it's a miserable piece of shit. Only shitty guns discharge when dropped. Spend the money to get them a decent fucking gun, especially if they're your honor guard. There's no honor in standing there with a shitty gun. (The gun imparts no particular honor IMO, but it should at least be decent.)
Do you use firearms much? In real situations? Like even out at the range or in the woods? A loaded firearm is *always* a hazard. One you mitigate with practice and experience, but nevertheless *always* a hazard.
As for the "honour" being diluted? The ceremonial guard weapons are typically of historical interest, and represent their purpose for ceremony - there is much honour in being the ceremonial guard with a ceremonial weapon.
What if you stopped for a picture and someone took your gun
Took your gun? Seriously? TOOK YOUR GUN? What the actual FUCK? You don't put the fucking thing down
And you keep the psychopath from grabbing it from your hands how? Seriously, this is a ceremonial position in a public square. Stop thinking like a Rambo.
Number one thing for you to learn is that accidents are much more common than enemy action when on ceremonial duty. So plan for the accidents, not for the armed assault.
I'm going to stop there as the next few points you make cast insults at the brave men and women who serve our armed forces. Grow up.
Incorrect. The restriction to 5 rounds is for semi-automatic center-fire rifles or handguns. There is no restriction for non-semiautomatic center-fire rifles or handguns. Clarification at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-...
The shooter's weapon has been reported as a Winchester .30-.30 model 94, lever action. It's capacity is 8 rounds, and is perfectly legal to own in Canada, given your Possession and Acquisition License.
The point remains the same however - our firearms restraints make it difficult to go on a broad shooting rampage. Reloading the model 94 is a royal PITA (I know, it was my go-to deer hunting rifle for several years). Even with practice I doubt the 30 second reload time widely quoted.
And as I'm forced to interject in any gun-control talk, the main threat from guns is not a wack-job shooter, though they get all the press. The main threat is accidental/unintentional discharge by minors. The most critical change the US could make to its gun laws is to force (and enforce) unloaded storage with ammunition kept separate.
You need to give back your weekends. The only reason you don't work 6 days a week is unions.
There are equivalencies to be made across the parties. This is not one of them.
And on top of it, the fine is reasonable for what amounts to civil disobedience. It might or might not have been the way to protest, but the fine isn't insane, either way.
But if they were really trying to be correct they'd have made the price Tau dollars.
There is *certainly* a moral component. The money taxed is earned in part with tax-payer provided assets: roads, security infrastructure, various regulatory frameworks, a court system, and so on. Being part of a functioning western society and partaking of its infrastructural advantages costs sometime - we call that "taxes". Debating the level of taxes vs the benefits is certainly acceptable, but claiming there's no moral dimension is wrong.
I want mod points! +5 Correct.
Explain, in detail, how that works, please. I know no western taxation system in which the break to the next income level causes increased taxes at the level below. (Ok, I know a couple of cases involving claw-backs of benefits at the lowest tax bracket - those are errors that should be fixed, not the intent of the progressive taxation system).
This is a *VERY* common mis-understanding of how the income tax rates work.
Had there been perfect response by armed teachers at every event this year, at most 37 deaths would have been prevented, though that's the upper bound of somehow stopping them before they even start. I don't care to speculate on how many accidents would be added by having firearms in classrooms. There *will* be moments of carelessness.
Your macho fantasy world isn't the true world.
Innumeracy kills.
Bans aren't needed. Require trigger locks,and that they be stored them unloaded, and keep the ammo separate (and locked). Accidents drop hugely as do suicides (yes, you can defeat the system, but suicidal ideation tends to pass quickly, especially if you're futzing with a lock you don't have the keys to), Your base rates of gun related injuries and death drop. And the base rate totally overwhelms felon-on-non-felon murders and ill people who feel the need to shoot up the world.
Base rate analysis matters, dumbass.
You don't have to trust, you just have to make corruption too expensive. Count in small batches, on site, at close of voting, with volunteer observers from every person on the ballot. It works, it scales, and it limits the effectiveness of co-opting a few individuals, unlike *anything* to do with electronic voting.
How do you have any confidence at all that your mail-in ballot is counted?
How do you have any confidence at all that central counting place hasn't been corrupted?
Centralization does nothing in vote counting except create large-scale single-point of failure possibilities.
The point is that you really don't have to trust the scrutineers: every party represented on the ballot has the right to have an observer present during the counting. Since each ballot box has relatively few ballots (500 or so), the count is quick. If your party can't muster a volunteer per 500 voters, you have deeper problems than vote fraud.