Well there are some completely logical and sane reason to kill people, but no real logical reasons to go on shooting sprees unless he planned on and wanted to go to jail or commit suicide.
Hmm, seems to me that a shooting spree could be used as a cover for a deliberate murder of a single person, assuming that the deliberate murder of that one person would have some impact more severe than "he was caught in the crossfire by a nutjob".
Technically, he was hanged. Of course, he could have been hung as well, but his penis size wasn't really in question....
Yes, I'm being a grammar nazi, and yes, I've always been fascinated by the fact that "hung" is the past (& past participle) of "hang" for everything other than execution.
The N.R.A. goes overboard and uses overboard scare tactics with it's members
Interestingly, in the latest issue of "America's First Freedom" (one of the NRA's magazines, like Guns & Ammo but more political), they dissected Feinstein's new "assault weapon ban".
Their dissection was so over the top that I assumed they were just trying to scare the crap out of their readers, and so I decided to check thomas.loc.gov for the actual text of the bill...
The really astounding thing was that the NRA's dissection of the bill was, if anything, an understatement (i.e. the bill, as written, could be read to ban ALL semi-automatic handguns, as well as the early-19th century Colt Revolving shotguns) of the problem.
I should point out that Polygamy causes similar harm to society as a whole as selective abortion of female children. It causes an excess of unattached (and frustrated) young males, which increases local violence and society's predilection for violent resolution of disagreement... ie, war.
Or not.
Depending, of course, on whether you're using the correct definition of polygamy (marriage involving more than one wife OR husband), as opposed to say, polygyny (more than one wife) or polyandry (more than one husband).
Note that polygamy proper (multiple marriage involving an indefinite number of husbands and wives) can also be a wonderful way of conserving capital from generation to generation, as a family is less likely to be economically devastated by the loss of a breadwinner if there are, say four breadwinners in the family, along with two (or three or four) stay-at-home parents....
The real worry is the submarine launched cruise missiles. With those, you only have two or three minutes to get the shelter door closed, and the mountain sealed.
Umm, no.
A sub-launched cruise missile (if we bothered to use them instead of the sub-launched BALLISTIC missiles we actually carry on our missile subs) is subsonic, so the missile would only cover about twenty miles in that time.
Which means it won't even have reached the coast, much less the "mountain" you're using as a shelter.
An obvious solution is to add a small thruster to decelerate the real warhead as well.
If you decelerate the real warhead, then you change its course to something that won't hit the target.
Or do you really believe you can decelerate to ~200km/hr and still fall halfway around the world to hit a target on another continent?
Of course, you could put another rocket on the real bomb, decelerate it to match the decoys, then re-accelerate it back to its original course...
Which would pretty much require that your ICBM carry a second ICBM as its payload. So, instead of a 100+ ton missile, you have a 5000+ ton missile for each warhead - yeah, that'll be an effective way of deploying a nuclear weapon - might as well FedEx it.
Its the nuclear subs sitting 20 miles off the coast of... well, everywhere, that are fully capable of launching a hundred nuclear tipped cruise missles at a moments notice...
Two things:
1) You don't park your nuclear deterrent 20 miles off the coast. They're much farther out.
2) The nuclear deterrent we use are SLBMs, NOT "cruise missiles. If you're interested, SLBM is an acronym for Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile.
Qualifiers: I haven't been part of the crew of a boomer for a long time - things may have changed. On the other hand, boats still put to sea with Trident missiles, so I don't think so.
And no one in any usa government position has advocated "banning guns".
Haven't read the text of Feinstein's "assault weapon ban", have you? Which does advocate banning guns.
Note, for those are interested in such things, that the definition of "assault weapon" includes the Colt Revolving Shotgun (first manufactured in 1838)....
Even more interesting is that a Ruger Mini-14 with a black plastic stock is banned, but the same gun with a walnut stock is on the "exempt" list.
The last test was a bona fide nuclear explosion, not a fizzle. Granted, they don't have the capability to deliver nukes on a missile (yet), but Seoul is only thirty five miles from the DMZ. All the Norks need to do is load it on a jet, fly to Seoul, and detonate.
6-7 kT, as I recall reading about their last test.
So not even up to where we were in 1945.
If we assume that their bomb is about the size of Fatman or Little Boy, then they don't have a plane capable of carrying it, even if they were inclined to test South Korea's Air Defense with their only Bomb.
Needs to be quick? The only way to insure a quick conflict is to walk away after whatever your time limit is. Based on the previous Korean War I don't think 'quick' would be in the cards.
The previous Korean War lasted less than a year till the North Koreans had been pushed back to the Yalu River - then the Chinese Army came in on North Korea's side.
If the Chinese are prepared to fight alongside Korea, a new Korean War will be long and painful.
Oh, wait, they got driven back to the Yalu, and the Chinese had to save their asses....
Note that what we have in Korea right now is more than what we had there at the start of the Korean War.
And our equipment is better as well, both comparatively and absolutely (for example, in 1950, the American tanks available in/near Korea were Shermans, the North Koreans used t-34/85. Now it's Abrams vs T80, maybe. Ditto aircraft - Mustangs and Corsairs vs Mig-15 at first. that sort of thing).
Incredible amounts of money and aggravation are wasted every year on this leftover from the age of agriculture.
Age of agriculture?
DST was invented, pretty much, as a side-effect of the burning desire to keep the pubs open later during WW1 (& later WW2 - Double Summer Time, anyone?)
A key part that you overlooked was "IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR". Congress has the power to call up the militia in time of War, and has NOT done so.
The President does NOT have this power.
So, once you can get the Congress to call up the militia for service in time of war (basically, draft EVERYONE!!), then the case you describe is possible.
Of course, in that case, EVERYONE would be part of the military and under military justice, and thus the whole subject would be moot ("So, the President is telling the Third Air Wing to bomb Schofield Barracks? Isn't that a trifle odd, to be bombing yourself?").
And we all know that the best way to ensure the "strictest scrutiny" is to have the decision made by a "senior administration official" with no outside (read: judicial) oversight....
Just look at how Clinton would be vilified as being a liar and a cheat (no matter what issue he is discussing) because he cheated on his wife - even if his infidelity has nothing to do with the issue under question.
Personally, I don't know anyone (including me) who really gives a rat's ass that Clinton cheated on his wife.
On the other hand, banging an employee fits the sexual harassment laws really well, even with consent on the part of the employee.
And there was the whole perjury thing. It may be perfectly okay to bang an employee who isn't your wife (though note the sexual harassment part), but denying it on the stand at a trial is a crime in and of itself.
Obama can take a position that Congress needs to be summarily dismissed, since executive branch is handling things just fine without them.
Interestingly enough, shortly after the Congress declared war in WW2, President Roosevelt "suggested" that Congress go into recess until the war was over...
Luckily for all of us, Congress told him to pound sand....
I always thought it had something to do with the fact that Poland still had a horse-mounted cavalry at the beginning of WWII. Hitler famously staged a fake cavalry attack to justify invading Poland. I think that image of Polish cavalry charging across the border with their swords raised toward's Hitler's tanks has resonated through the ages.
Of course, the truth was that that never happened. Polish cavalry were dragoons (that mans they rode horses to battle, then got down off the nags and fought like innfantry), just like every other cavalry force still extent then (USSR used them, for example).
It should also be noted that there were more horses in use by the Wehrmacht than the Poles. 90+% of German "prime movers" were draft horses, not trucks/tractors.
I'm pretty sure the US courts handle IP infringment a lot more harshly than any of the stuff NK does.
I take it you haven't heard about their "three generations rule"? If you do something deserving of a concentration camp, they also send your parents, siblings, and children along.
The government's crusade against Assault rifles is not to protect innocents, it's to protect Drones. Despite the rather small.22 caliber round, they're highly accurate and long range.
1) The government is NOT crusading against "assault rifles", they are crusading against semi-automatic rifles that LOOK LIKE assault rifles.
2) No, they're NOT highly accurate in and of themselves. Some of them are notoriously inaccurate.
3) No, they're NOT long range. Not by rifle standards, anyway. My.30-06 single-shot can push a bullet farther than my mini-14 can, by a considerable margin. Note that smaller calibre tends to mean more drag (larger surface area to mass ratio), which tends to mean that they lose both speed and accuracy quicker than a typical hunting round.
Contrary to popular rumour, we didn't switch to 5.56 because it was a super-powerful, incredibly accurate round. We switched because a soldier could carry more of them, and because they were capable of a disabling wound at battlefield ranges (typically a couple hundred yards or so).
Unlike our previous round, the 7.62 NATO, which weighed about three times as much, and could inflict a disabling wound out past 400 yards, if you bothered to shoot at someone that far away with your rifle.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, seems to me that a shooting spree could be used as a cover for a deliberate murder of a single person, assuming that the deliberate murder of that one person would have some impact more severe than "he was caught in the crossfire by a nutjob".
Technically, he was hanged. Of course, he could have been hung as well, but his penis size wasn't really in question....
Yes, I'm being a grammar nazi, and yes, I've always been fascinated by the fact that "hung" is the past (& past participle) of "hang" for everything other than execution.
Interestingly, in the latest issue of "America's First Freedom" (one of the NRA's magazines, like Guns & Ammo but more political), they dissected Feinstein's new "assault weapon ban".
Their dissection was so over the top that I assumed they were just trying to scare the crap out of their readers, and so I decided to check thomas.loc.gov for the actual text of the bill...
The really astounding thing was that the NRA's dissection of the bill was, if anything, an understatement (i.e. the bill, as written, could be read to ban ALL semi-automatic handguns, as well as the early-19th century Colt Revolving shotguns) of the problem.
Presumably, on everything except the proper spelling of "your parents".
Hint: "we're" = "we are". "You're" = "you are".
Or not.
Depending, of course, on whether you're using the correct definition of polygamy (marriage involving more than one wife OR husband), as opposed to say, polygyny (more than one wife) or polyandry (more than one husband).
Note that polygamy proper (multiple marriage involving an indefinite number of husbands and wives) can also be a wonderful way of conserving capital from generation to generation, as a family is less likely to be economically devastated by the loss of a breadwinner if there are, say four breadwinners in the family, along with two (or three or four) stay-at-home parents....
Heh.
Managed to avoid that particular problem myself, but it usually happened once per patrol.
Just once. After that, everyone had someone to laugh at, and the laughter reminded you not to do it again....
Though I could've sworn that ball valve was bigger than 4 inches....
Umm, no.
A sub-launched cruise missile (if we bothered to use them instead of the sub-launched BALLISTIC missiles we actually carry on our missile subs) is subsonic, so the missile would only cover about twenty miles in that time.
Which means it won't even have reached the coast, much less the "mountain" you're using as a shelter.
If you decelerate the real warhead, then you change its course to something that won't hit the target.
Or do you really believe you can decelerate to ~200km/hr and still fall halfway around the world to hit a target on another continent?
Of course, you could put another rocket on the real bomb, decelerate it to match the decoys, then re-accelerate it back to its original course...
Which would pretty much require that your ICBM carry a second ICBM as its payload. So, instead of a 100+ ton missile, you have a 5000+ ton missile for each warhead - yeah, that'll be an effective way of deploying a nuclear weapon - might as well FedEx it.
Two things:
1) You don't park your nuclear deterrent 20 miles off the coast. They're much farther out.
2) The nuclear deterrent we use are SLBMs, NOT "cruise missiles. If you're interested, SLBM is an acronym for Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile.
Qualifiers: I haven't been part of the crew of a boomer for a long time - things may have changed. On the other hand, boats still put to sea with Trident missiles, so I don't think so.
Haven't read the text of Feinstein's "assault weapon ban", have you? Which does advocate banning guns.
Note, for those are interested in such things, that the definition of "assault weapon" includes the Colt Revolving Shotgun (first manufactured in 1838)....
Even more interesting is that a Ruger Mini-14 with a black plastic stock is banned, but the same gun with a walnut stock is on the "exempt" list.
No, it was because Galileo called the Pope a blockhead in one of his papers.
Good rule of thumb: don't ever call a ruler (either temporal or spiritual) an idiot in print if you're trying to stay out of legal trouble....
Of course, not answering on that cross-border hotline is a de facto violation of the Armistice....
6-7 kT, as I recall reading about their last test.
So not even up to where we were in 1945.
If we assume that their bomb is about the size of Fatman or Little Boy, then they don't have a plane capable of carrying it, even if they were inclined to test South Korea's Air Defense with their only Bomb.
The previous Korean War lasted less than a year till the North Koreans had been pushed back to the Yalu River - then the Chinese Army came in on North Korea's side.
If the Chinese are prepared to fight alongside Korea, a new Korean War will be long and painful.
If not, not....
And that worked so well for them in 1950, eh?
Oh, wait, they got driven back to the Yalu, and the Chinese had to save their asses....
Note that what we have in Korea right now is more than what we had there at the start of the Korean War.
And our equipment is better as well, both comparatively and absolutely (for example, in 1950, the American tanks available in/near Korea were Shermans, the North Koreans used t-34/85. Now it's Abrams vs T80, maybe. Ditto aircraft - Mustangs and Corsairs vs Mig-15 at first. that sort of thing).
Age of agriculture?
DST was invented, pretty much, as a side-effect of the burning desire to keep the pubs open later during WW1 (& later WW2 - Double Summer Time, anyone?)
So, in the top 25% is now "close to the all time peak" for the last 11000 years?
Would it be vaguely possible to at least get titles that weren't deliberately alarmist?
Nope.
A key part that you overlooked was "IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR". Congress has the power to call up the militia in time of War, and has NOT done so.
The President does NOT have this power.
So, once you can get the Congress to call up the militia for service in time of war (basically, draft EVERYONE!!), then the case you describe is possible.
Of course, in that case, EVERYONE would be part of the military and under military justice, and thus the whole subject would be moot ("So, the President is telling the Third Air Wing to bomb Schofield Barracks? Isn't that a trifle odd, to be bombing yourself?").
And we all know that the best way to ensure the "strictest scrutiny" is to have the decision made by a "senior administration official" with no outside (read: judicial) oversight....
Personally, I don't know anyone (including me) who really gives a rat's ass that Clinton cheated on his wife.
On the other hand, banging an employee fits the sexual harassment laws really well, even with consent on the part of the employee.
And there was the whole perjury thing. It may be perfectly okay to bang an employee who isn't your wife (though note the sexual harassment part), but denying it on the stand at a trial is a crime in and of itself.
Contrary to popular theory, a lack of a permanent CIA Director does not cripple the government.
Interestingly enough, shortly after the Congress declared war in WW2, President Roosevelt "suggested" that Congress go into recess until the war was over...
Luckily for all of us, Congress told him to pound sand....
Of course, the truth was that that never happened. Polish cavalry were dragoons (that mans they rode horses to battle, then got down off the nags and fought like innfantry), just like every other cavalry force still extent then (USSR used them, for example).
It should also be noted that there were more horses in use by the Wehrmacht than the Poles. 90+% of German "prime movers" were draft horses, not trucks/tractors.
I take it you haven't heard about their "three generations rule"? If you do something deserving of a concentration camp, they also send your parents, siblings, and children along.
1) The government is NOT crusading against "assault rifles", they are crusading against semi-automatic rifles that LOOK LIKE assault rifles.
2) No, they're NOT highly accurate in and of themselves. Some of them are notoriously inaccurate.
3) No, they're NOT long range. Not by rifle standards, anyway. My .30-06 single-shot can push a bullet farther than my mini-14 can, by a considerable margin. Note that smaller calibre tends to mean more drag (larger surface area to mass ratio), which tends to mean that they lose both speed and accuracy quicker than a typical hunting round.
Contrary to popular rumour, we didn't switch to 5.56 because it was a super-powerful, incredibly accurate round. We switched because a soldier could carry more of them, and because they were capable of a disabling wound at battlefield ranges (typically a couple hundred yards or so).
Unlike our previous round, the 7.62 NATO, which weighed about three times as much, and could inflict a disabling wound out past 400 yards, if you bothered to shoot at someone that far away with your rifle.