Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
How many of those 33% would go and buy the PC through the Microsoft Store? Why wouldn't they just buy it from Lenovo if they don't want to run Windows?
The summary explicitly stated "Best Buy." If you are going to purchase a laptop and don't want to wait for shipping, going to a place like Best Buy is certainly not unreasonable (especially since they price match placed like Amazon). Having purchased what was believed to be an "ordinary" PC and not being able to install the OS of choice is, understandably, a bit of a shock.
To people who have strong feelings about Best Buy: don't read this as an invitation to bash/praise them. This comment is simply that the machine apparently was not purchased from Microsoft, no handcuffs were not expected to be included with the purchase.
But they said it's a "barometric vent"; not a barometer. Could it just be a hole to make sure the internal and external pressure are the same?
I remember when the waterproof Yaesu VX-7 radio came out (hand-held amateur radio transceiver), and it had a problem with being too sealed.. The problem with anything that is waterproof and has a speaker and/or a microphone is that the pressure on the inside can be very different from the pressure on the outside. If you change altitude, you will find that the pressure difference inside can press on the speaker diaphragm and/or microphone diaphragm. This limits the diaphragm travel, and will result in distorted audio. When this happened on the VX-7, the users discovered that they could crack open the battery case to "burp" the unit, restoring normal audio (at least until they changed elevation again). The eventual solution from the manufacturer turned out to be (from what I understand) to actually put a hole in the case and cover it with Gore-Tex. Water still stays out, but enough air can get through to equalize the pressure.
Since the iPhone has both speakers and microphones, something like this is needed if you really want to make it waterproof. Since the interior then has the same pressure as the outside, that makes it easy to drop a barometric sensor anywhere there is space on the board.
The problem is that the "state that stole their land" is actually a state. All Muslims around Israel only want peace -- by killing every Jew...
Let me list some surrounding Muslim countries: * Lebanon * Jordan * Syria * Iraq * Egypt * Lybia * Kuwait * Turkey * Iran
Next, let me list every single Jewish country in the world: * Israel
Yeah, a very short list.
Do you even know HOW Israel came into possession of the "occupied territories?" Israel was surrounded by armies on all sides ready to invade, and got their butts kicked.
Let me put it this way. If Canada and Mexico tried to invade the USA, could you blame us if we took part of both as a "buffer zone?" Also, if people in those areas were routinely launching unguided rockets at us, and having their citizens routinely commit mass murder against our citizens, don't you think that trying to stop the attacks would be a priority?
You can bet a Jewish-founded and Jewish-funded site is going to do zero in regards to Hebrew language incitement against the Palestinians or Iranians or anyone else out of favor there.
I hate replying to an AC, but can you show me some Jewish incitement?
The Palestinians actually had a hate-based children's show called Tomorrow's Pioneers. Yes, this was a show aimed at small children, and tried to teach them that killing Jews is a good thing. Show me ANYTHING comparable that the Jews have done.
There is also a "holiday" called Quds day this is sort of a Muslim "we hate the Jews" celebration. Once again, show me an Israeli holiday focused on killing Muslims.
As an EE, I have some experience with this. I really do digital logic chip design, and leave the design of the IO pins to the analog guys (and I am NOT an analog guy)...
However, pins are designed to dissipate excess charge using the "human body model." The specification is charging a small capacitor to a few thousand volts and dissipating that into a pin. Since the capacitance is small, the total amperage is very small. There are zener diodes built into IO pads that can handle this small amount of current. An ESD event will only last for the barest fraction of a second. Now, if you actually intentionally put too much voltage across pins for a prolonged period of time, I can easily imagine those zener diodes dying. Once that happens, the voltage will start to play merry hell with the logic.
I also did some government (military) work a decade ago. With those systems, you generally hardened them against EMP pulses (don't want a nuke taking down your electronics), so we used something called "transorbs.". Basically, these are big, beefy external zener diodes that can clamp this type of event. HOWEVER, from what I recall, those diodes put too much capacitance on the line, which would do very bad things to high-speed data lines, such as the ones found in USB data lines. Transorbs are great for things like low-speed serial port lines (which explains standards like MIL-STD-1553. I do not know if transorbs have improved much (not done that sort of thing for 10 years), but these are the types of problems you have to face when dealing with something like this -- the devices needed to protect your USB ports might just make your USB ports unusable.
Wait. Aren't these the same Democrats that vilify "big money" from the likes of the Koch Brothers? Funny how they scream about that, but didn't say a word in this case, or when Soros donated 8 million to Hillary.
If you don't believe me, look no further than most cases for iPhones (example Amazon link to Otterbox case below). Wow, the case manufacturers make sure to put a cut-out in the case for the logo on the phone, just so that everybody around you knows that you are using a Apple product. It would be HORRIBLE for the people around you to not realize how trendy, cool, and awesome you are by the phone brand that you choose. If you have it, you have to flaunt it.
Android users, on the other hand, just want something that gets the job done without costing too much, and don't really care if the person next to them knows what kind of phone they use. I can't seem to recall a case for an Android device that leave a cut-out for the logo.
The real problem, IMHO, is that when I type, I rest my fingers on the keyboard and then just press the one that I want harder. I also rely on the "feel" of the key under my fingers to determine if I am actually hitting in the middle of the keys or if I need to shift my hands around just a little.
On a touch screen, resting your fingers on the keyboard is called "pressing several keys at the same time" and is bad. So, to actually "type" with a touch screen, you need to hover your fingers over the keyboard, which also means that your fingers can easily shift.
Here are three people who are alive because of a gun. A grizzly attacked some fishermen in the Alaskan wilderness. Do you really want to tell those people that you would prefer that they be dead right now because guns are evil?
Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.
I don't recall ever stating that the police should be disbanded.
When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!
Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.
I'd also like to find out your source for determining that shoot-outs are somehow safer for a woman
Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.
If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.
Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.
Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...
Studies have shows... MILLION TIMES A YEAR Well for starters, some sources would be good.
OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:
Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3]
So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just
Suppose that I had a relative who was killed by a red car. I go on a crusade saying that all red cars are dangerous and get the laws changed -- red cars are now illegal. After 10 years, the number of red-car-involved deaths effectively drops to zero. So, I can now claim success and that taking red cars off of the streets has made the streets safer.
My forcing murderers to use different tools does not make them stop being murderers.
Other countries also have different amounts of racial diversity, different languages, different economies, different mental health care systems, and different languages. Clearly we can ignore all of those other differences and only focus on the one difference that proves your point.
I could play the same game. In Japan there are not privately-owned guns, and they have a LOT more suicides. If Japan had more guns, their suicide rate would go down. See how that works?
I find it funny how some people blame Chicago's violence problems on other cities with more lax laws. The interesting thing is how other cities with more guns generally have LESS CRIME.
So, we have two cities: one with high crime, and one with low crime. Obviously, the solution is to take the laws of the failing city and force those on the city that is doing OK. Yeah, right. This is like taking a test and cheating off of the dumbest kid in the class. If I were running a business, I would want to take business advice from the company that is making money, not the one that is going bankrupt. However, this is exactly what people want when they say that the problem with Chicago is that their laws are not nation-wide.
A gun is certainly a better tool for killing than a knife. However, if denied a gun, you certainly CAN kill with a knife, and the victim will be just as dead.
A guy in France managed to kill close to 100 people without using a gun.
Let's assume that we DID get rid of all guns. What would be the result? Criminals tend to be young males. Victims can be anybody, including women, and the elderly. Statistically speaking, in a physical confrontation, elderly and women are at a disadvantage compared to men. So you are clearly in FAVOR of criminals having an advantage. How very nice of you to make the streets safe for murderers and rapists. What chance does a 100-pound woman have against a crazy-ex? If she armed herself, at least she would have a chance. How sad that people like you want the woman defenseless. If I had to choose, I would much rather see the woman alive and her stalker dead, rather than the way that you would prefer. OK, you might not prefer that the woman die, but if you refuse to allow her the tools to defend herself, you are not really giving her much of a choice.
Studies have shows that guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES A YEAR to prevent or deter crime. There are a lot of studies on this subject, and many of them are done to prove a point (pro-freedom or anti-freedom), so the numbers vary wildly. However, the median (aka probably most accurate) number seems to be around 800,000 to 1,000,000 times per year (think Olympic scoring -- discard low and high numbers and average the rest). So, you actually think that it would be a great idea to NOT deter crime a million times a year? Wow, how can anybody be that stupid?
Plus, if you did get rid of the guns, you still have the criminals. People will STILL DIE, so with guns gone, you then have to move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives! I wish that I were joking, read this Snopes article:
The fact that people have to ask "is this satire" and the answer is "sadly, no." should be telling. So, yeah, if you really want to get rid of violence, you can do two things:
* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.
--OR--
* Get rid of guns.
* Whoops, people are still killing each other. Get rid of knives.
* Darn, people are still killing each other. Require proof of athletic league membership to buy a baseball bat, and you had better be a professional carpenter before buying a hammer.
Sadly, you would choose path #2. Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America. I carry a Leatherman Wave on my belt at all times. You would be surprised how many times a day I need a knife, scissors, or screwdriver. Do you think that I want to live in a country where carrying a simple, common multi-tool can get me arrested?
Also, getting rid of guns will also remove hunting. Hunting is NECESSARY -- simple fact. Apex predators are mostly gone (like wolves). Vegetarian animals generally survive by running away and breeding a lot. It is the breeding thing that causes problems. Animals like deer and elk will breed like crazy in the absence of predators, until their numbers lead to destruction of habitat, starvation, and disease. I know that if I were a deer, I would rather have a happy life and live with a 10% chance of being shot, rather than a 100% chance of starvation, and hope that I was one of the ones strong enough to survive. I live close to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the rangers are having to shoot elk to keep their numbers down! True -- look it up.
Ahhhh, another person who elevates assumptions to the level of facts.
1) Yes, guns are more powerful. However, the VAST majority of murders are in ones and twos. Mass murders are actually hardly a blip on the statistics. So can a person kill another person with only a knife? YES. In fact, it is possible to commit MASS murder with a knife. A couple of years ago, a guy near a college campus killed several people. He killed just as many people WITHOUT a gun as he did WITH a gun. Also, the army faces ENEMIES who are also armed, not innocent victims. A guy with a knife against an unarmed person still has a powerful advantage.
2) They will turn into a criminal who can kill you from three feet away with little chance of defending yourself.
2a) If the victim is armed, they might stand a chance. If you disarm the victim and the criminal still has at least a knife, they are still pretty screwed.
3) Less guns for the criminal to get their hands on comes about by disarming the VICTIMS. Yeah, right. Explain to me how disarming me makes me any safer. I have killed zero people. I have shot zero people. I have stabbed zero people. Disarming me only makes things safer for criminals that would seek to harm me or my family.
So, yeah, thanks of proving my point AGAIN that the media can make assumptions that sane people will still disagree on.
By the way, you are right about more gun deaths than knife deaths. However, it would be extremely foolish to think that by removing guns, that those killed by guns would still be alive. Most of those would just turn into knife deaths. And, once again, I point out that people killed by knives are JUST AS DEAD as those killed by guns. How many people were killed by a TRUCK in France last month? Do you think that all of those grieving relatives are happy that their loved ones were not killed by a gun? Shifting murder from one weapon to another does nothing.
Get rid of the guns, and you still have murderers who will use another tool. Get rid of the criminal, and there will be no murders, no matter what tools are available.
By the way, did you know that there is VERY LITTLE correlation between the availability of guns and the homicide rate? On the other hand, there is a VERY BIG correlation between poverty and violence. Chicago has the same gun laws throughout the city. However, some zip codes have no homicides each year, and some zip codes have quite a few! The difference is the poverty in each zip code. If you want to save lives, try doing something about the poverty. Provide jobs.
I should also point out that, yes, guns make it easier to kill many people -- like in France, where they have very strict gun laws, where the killers had guns. However, the odds of being the victim of a mass murder are approximately the same as being struck by lightning -- extremely rare and not a good enough reason to restrict the rights of MILLIONS of honest Americans who have hurt nobody.
Simply stated, there are people (like you) who want to tell everybody else how to live. There are people (like me) who just want to be left the hell alone to live my life without people like you poking your nose into my business.
I did not INTEND this to be a gun thread. I was just pointing out how the media can make ASSUMPTIONS that are not actually true!
Facts for you, besides the ones showing that the homicide rate is DECREASING. Quick! The streets are safer every year. DO SOMETHING TO REVERSE THIS HORRIBLE TREND!
We tried an "assault weapons ban" for 10 years. No noticeable affect on crime.
Over 300 millions guns in the US. 8,124 gun homicides in 2014. That means that for every gun used in a murder, there are were 37,000 that killed nobody. Yes, that means 0.027% of all guns are the problems.
In general, reducing the total number of guns will affect very little. Taking guns away from HONEST people will accomplish exactly NOTHING, and may even make things worse, since the honest can no longer defend themselves. There have been studies on this. Defensive gun use numbers vary based on the politics of the person doing the study, but even low-ball numbers are in the hundreds of thousands of incidents each year. High end ranges in several million, but around a million times a year seems to be the media. Yes, a million times a year guns are used to prevent or deter crime.
Some of the most violent places have the most strict gun laws! You may say that the guns come from areas with looser gun laws, but I will respond that those areas with looser gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME. The net effect is that with strict gun laws, only the criminals are armed. If you have two cities: one with horrible crime and one that is doing OK, the obvious solution is to take the laws from the city that is failing and forcing those laws on the city that is doing great. That is like saying that a business that is making money should copy the business that is going bankrupt.
And please don't tell me that honest people don't stop crime with guns. An attempted mass shooting happened about one mile from where I live right now, and a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy.
So, you have proven my point. Don't make Assumptions that are not proven.
Facts are not unfair or biased. However, media can (and often does) choose which facts need to be reported.
As a quick example, homicides are down over 50% since their peak around 1992 or 1993. The last time homicides were this low was 1957 (facts, based on FBI statistics). However, I have actually seen articles about "What (insert candidate name here) is going to do about gun violence?" This already assumes several things, and it is possible that NONE of them are true:
1) Gun deaths are somehow worse than knife deaths
2) A criminal without a gun will suddenly stop being a criminal
3) That doing something will automatically make the public safer, instead of just disarming the honest people.
4) Gun laws will actually affect criminals, whose job actually involves breaking the law.
Each of those points could be a discussion by itself, and yet some "news" pretends that all assumptions are already decided.
That is now news, that is propaganda. It is actually shaping the discussion to stack the deck in your favor.
Interesting point about the watchdogs. Who actually IS a watchdog these days?
When I was a kid, you could generally trust the media. However, since the repeal of the "fairness doctrine," every media outlet is biased, and is really more of a propaganda machine than simply news.
They can't go back and pay for it -- they've already pirated it.
I am not sure that I agree with this -- it is a bit of a gray zone.
If you pirate a track or an album, and then later pay for it, then who is the victim? Who is out their money? One customer still equals one sale of one track/album. Where is the loss?
How do you pay for an unauthorized track you've downloaded when you download it, much less "later"?
For fans that have to have music the same day, download it illegally, and then purchase that track/album when it becomes available. That is a "win/win." Fans get music ASAP, labels and artists get money.
And I would suggest you don't waste your time going to a Barenaked Ladies concert. You'll be horribly disappointed.
Real fans WILL support the artist. I would expect that a real fan would download the track to get it first, and then pay for it later. Real fans don't want to rip off one of their favorite artists.
I actually saw 21 pilots a few years ago before they really became popular. It was a small venue that only held a couple hundred people. Funny, there were only two of them. I wonder where the other 19 were? (yes, that's a (not very good) joke)
Slashdot Mirror
Those two are kind of the same thing...
Plus, the real quote is usually translated as "You shall not murder"(hebrew "rasah") which is different from kill. If somebody is trying to kill you, the bible does not say that you cannot defend yourself, which goes well with gun rights.
The summary explicitly stated "Best Buy." If you are going to purchase a laptop and don't want to wait for shipping, going to a place like Best Buy is certainly not unreasonable (especially since they price match placed like Amazon). Having purchased what was believed to be an "ordinary" PC and not being able to install the OS of choice is, understandably, a bit of a shock.
To people who have strong feelings about Best Buy: don't read this as an invitation to bash/praise them. This comment is simply that the machine apparently was not purchased from Microsoft, no handcuffs were not expected to be included with the purchase.
I remember when the waterproof Yaesu VX-7 radio came out (hand-held amateur radio transceiver), and it had a problem with being too sealed.. The problem with anything that is waterproof and has a speaker and/or a microphone is that the pressure on the inside can be very different from the pressure on the outside. If you change altitude, you will find that the pressure difference inside can press on the speaker diaphragm and/or microphone diaphragm. This limits the diaphragm travel, and will result in distorted audio. When this happened on the VX-7, the users discovered that they could crack open the battery case to "burp" the unit, restoring normal audio (at least until they changed elevation again). The eventual solution from the manufacturer turned out to be (from what I understand) to actually put a hole in the case and cover it with Gore-Tex. Water still stays out, but enough air can get through to equalize the pressure.
Since the iPhone has both speakers and microphones, something like this is needed if you really want to make it waterproof. Since the interior then has the same pressure as the outside, that makes it easy to drop a barometric sensor anywhere there is space on the board.
The problem is that the "state that stole their land" is actually a state. All Muslims around Israel only want peace -- by killing every Jew...
Let me list some surrounding Muslim countries:
* Lebanon
* Jordan
* Syria
* Iraq
* Egypt
* Lybia
* Kuwait
* Turkey
* Iran
Next, let me list every single Jewish country in the world:
* Israel
Yeah, a very short list.
Do you even know HOW Israel came into possession of the "occupied territories?" Israel was surrounded by armies on all sides ready to invade, and got their butts kicked.
Let me put it this way. If Canada and Mexico tried to invade the USA, could you blame us if we took part of both as a "buffer zone?" Also, if people in those areas were routinely launching unguided rockets at us, and having their citizens routinely commit mass murder against our citizens, don't you think that trying to stop the attacks would be a priority?
I hate replying to an AC, but can you show me some Jewish incitement?
The Palestinians actually had a hate-based children's show called Tomorrow's Pioneers. Yes, this was a show aimed at small children, and tried to teach them that killing Jews is a good thing. Show me ANYTHING comparable that the Jews have done.
There is also a "holiday" called Quds day this is sort of a Muslim "we hate the Jews" celebration. Once again, show me an Israeli holiday focused on killing Muslims.
Yes, the currents are huge, but the duration is small, so there is not much heating of the diodes...
As an EE, I have some experience with this. I really do digital logic chip design, and leave the design of the IO pins to the analog guys (and I am NOT an analog guy)...
However, pins are designed to dissipate excess charge using the "human body model." The specification is charging a small capacitor to a few thousand volts and dissipating that into a pin. Since the capacitance is small, the total amperage is very small. There are zener diodes built into IO pads that can handle this small amount of current. An ESD event will only last for the barest fraction of a second. Now, if you actually intentionally put too much voltage across pins for a prolonged period of time, I can easily imagine those zener diodes dying. Once that happens, the voltage will start to play merry hell with the logic.
I also did some government (military) work a decade ago. With those systems, you generally hardened them against EMP pulses (don't want a nuke taking down your electronics), so we used something called "transorbs.". Basically, these are big, beefy external zener diodes that can clamp this type of event. HOWEVER, from what I recall, those diodes put too much capacitance on the line, which would do very bad things to high-speed data lines, such as the ones found in USB data lines. Transorbs are great for things like low-speed serial port lines (which explains standards like MIL-STD-1553. I do not know if transorbs have improved much (not done that sort of thing for 10 years), but these are the types of problems you have to face when dealing with something like this -- the devices needed to protect your USB ports might just make your USB ports unusable.
Wait. Aren't these the same Democrats that vilify "big money" from the likes of the Koch Brothers? Funny how they scream about that, but didn't say a word in this case, or when Soros donated 8 million to Hillary.
An iPhone actually IS jewelry.
If you don't believe me, look no further than most cases for iPhones (example Amazon link to Otterbox case below). Wow, the case manufacturers make sure to put a cut-out in the case for the logo on the phone, just so that everybody around you knows that you are using a Apple product. It would be HORRIBLE for the people around you to not realize how trendy, cool, and awesome you are by the phone brand that you choose. If you have it, you have to flaunt it.
https://www.amazon.com/OtterBo...
Android users, on the other hand, just want something that gets the job done without costing too much, and don't really care if the person next to them knows what kind of phone they use. I can't seem to recall a case for an Android device that leave a cut-out for the logo.
Amen to that.
The real problem, IMHO, is that when I type, I rest my fingers on the keyboard and then just press the one that I want harder. I also rely on the "feel" of the key under my fingers to determine if I am actually hitting in the middle of the keys or if I need to shift my hands around just a little.
On a touch screen, resting your fingers on the keyboard is called "pressing several keys at the same time" and is bad. So, to actually "type" with a touch screen, you need to hover your fingers over the keyboard, which also means that your fingers can easily shift.
So, yeah, touch screens suck for typing.
Here are three people who are alive because of a gun. A grizzly attacked some fishermen in the Alaskan wilderness. Do you really want to tell those people that you would prefer that they be dead right now because guns are evil?
https://www.americanhunter.org...
Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.
When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!
Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.
Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.
If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.
Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.
Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :
So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just
Another example of VERY flawed logic.
Suppose that I had a relative who was killed by a red car. I go on a crusade saying that all red cars are dangerous and get the laws changed -- red cars are now illegal. After 10 years, the number of red-car-involved deaths effectively drops to zero. So, I can now claim success and that taking red cars off of the streets has made the streets safer.
My forcing murderers to use different tools does not make them stop being murderers.
Other countries also have different amounts of racial diversity, different languages, different economies, different mental health care systems, and different languages. Clearly we can ignore all of those other differences and only focus on the one difference that proves your point.
I could play the same game. In Japan there are not privately-owned guns, and they have a LOT more suicides. If Japan had more guns, their suicide rate would go down. See how that works?
I find it funny how some people blame Chicago's violence problems on other cities with more lax laws. The interesting thing is how other cities with more guns generally have LESS CRIME.
So, we have two cities: one with high crime, and one with low crime. Obviously, the solution is to take the laws of the failing city and force those on the city that is doing OK. Yeah, right. This is like taking a test and cheating off of the dumbest kid in the class. If I were running a business, I would want to take business advice from the company that is making money, not the one that is going bankrupt. However, this is exactly what people want when they say that the problem with Chicago is that their laws are not nation-wide.
A gun is certainly a better tool for killing than a knife. However, if denied a gun, you certainly CAN kill with a knife, and the victim will be just as dead.
A guy in France managed to kill close to 100 people without using a gun.
Wow. Soooo much fail in one post.
Let's assume that we DID get rid of all guns. What would be the result? Criminals tend to be young males. Victims can be anybody, including women, and the elderly. Statistically speaking, in a physical confrontation, elderly and women are at a disadvantage compared to men. So you are clearly in FAVOR of criminals having an advantage. How very nice of you to make the streets safe for murderers and rapists. What chance does a 100-pound woman have against a crazy-ex? If she armed herself, at least she would have a chance. How sad that people like you want the woman defenseless. If I had to choose, I would much rather see the woman alive and her stalker dead, rather than the way that you would prefer. OK, you might not prefer that the woman die, but if you refuse to allow her the tools to defend herself, you are not really giving her much of a choice.
Studies have shows that guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES A YEAR to prevent or deter crime. There are a lot of studies on this subject, and many of them are done to prove a point (pro-freedom or anti-freedom), so the numbers vary wildly. However, the median (aka probably most accurate) number seems to be around 800,000 to 1,000,000 times per year (think Olympic scoring -- discard low and high numbers and average the rest). So, you actually think that it would be a great idea to NOT deter crime a million times a year? Wow, how can anybody be that stupid?
Plus, if you did get rid of the guns, you still have the criminals. People will STILL DIE, so with guns gone, you then have to move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives! I wish that I were joking, read this Snopes article:
http://www.snopes.com/2015/06/...
The fact that people have to ask "is this satire" and the answer is "sadly, no." should be telling. So, yeah, if you really want to get rid of violence, you can do two things:
* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.
--OR--
* Get rid of guns.
* Whoops, people are still killing each other. Get rid of knives.
* Darn, people are still killing each other. Require proof of athletic league membership to buy a baseball bat, and you had better be a professional carpenter before buying a hammer.
Sadly, you would choose path #2. Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America. I carry a Leatherman Wave on my belt at all times. You would be surprised how many times a day I need a knife, scissors, or screwdriver. Do you think that I want to live in a country where carrying a simple, common multi-tool can get me arrested?
Also, getting rid of guns will also remove hunting. Hunting is NECESSARY -- simple fact. Apex predators are mostly gone (like wolves). Vegetarian animals generally survive by running away and breeding a lot. It is the breeding thing that causes problems. Animals like deer and elk will breed like crazy in the absence of predators, until their numbers lead to destruction of habitat, starvation, and disease. I know that if I were a deer, I would rather have a happy life and live with a 10% chance of being shot, rather than a 100% chance of starvation, and hope that I was one of the ones strong enough to survive. I live close to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the rangers are having to shoot elk to keep their numbers down! True -- look it up.
Ahhhh, another person who elevates assumptions to the level of facts.
1) Yes, guns are more powerful. However, the VAST majority of murders are in ones and twos. Mass murders are actually hardly a blip on the statistics. So can a person kill another person with only a knife? YES. In fact, it is possible to commit MASS murder with a knife. A couple of years ago, a guy near a college campus killed several people. He killed just as many people WITHOUT a gun as he did WITH a gun. Also, the army faces ENEMIES who are also armed, not innocent victims. A guy with a knife against an unarmed person still has a powerful advantage.
2) They will turn into a criminal who can kill you from three feet away with little chance of defending yourself.
2a) If the victim is armed, they might stand a chance. If you disarm the victim and the criminal still has at least a knife, they are still pretty screwed.
3) Less guns for the criminal to get their hands on comes about by disarming the VICTIMS. Yeah, right. Explain to me how disarming me makes me any safer. I have killed zero people. I have shot zero people. I have stabbed zero people. Disarming me only makes things safer for criminals that would seek to harm me or my family.
So, yeah, thanks of proving my point AGAIN that the media can make assumptions that sane people will still disagree on.
By the way, you are right about more gun deaths than knife deaths. However, it would be extremely foolish to think that by removing guns, that those killed by guns would still be alive. Most of those would just turn into knife deaths. And, once again, I point out that people killed by knives are JUST AS DEAD as those killed by guns. How many people were killed by a TRUCK in France last month? Do you think that all of those grieving relatives are happy that their loved ones were not killed by a gun? Shifting murder from one weapon to another does nothing.
Get rid of the guns, and you still have murderers who will use another tool. Get rid of the criminal, and there will be no murders, no matter what tools are available.
By the way, did you know that there is VERY LITTLE correlation between the availability of guns and the homicide rate? On the other hand, there is a VERY BIG correlation between poverty and violence. Chicago has the same gun laws throughout the city. However, some zip codes have no homicides each year, and some zip codes have quite a few! The difference is the poverty in each zip code. If you want to save lives, try doing something about the poverty. Provide jobs.
I should also point out that, yes, guns make it easier to kill many people -- like in France, where they have very strict gun laws, where the killers had guns. However, the odds of being the victim of a mass murder are approximately the same as being struck by lightning -- extremely rare and not a good enough reason to restrict the rights of MILLIONS of honest Americans who have hurt nobody.
Simply stated, there are people (like you) who want to tell everybody else how to live. There are people (like me) who just want to be left the hell alone to live my life without people like you poking your nose into my business.
I did not INTEND this to be a gun thread. I was just pointing out how the media can make ASSUMPTIONS that are not actually true!
Facts for you, besides the ones showing that the homicide rate is DECREASING. Quick! The streets are safer every year. DO SOMETHING TO REVERSE THIS HORRIBLE TREND!
We tried an "assault weapons ban" for 10 years. No noticeable affect on crime.
Over 300 millions guns in the US. 8,124 gun homicides in 2014. That means that for every gun used in a murder, there are were 37,000 that killed nobody. Yes, that means 0.027% of all guns are the problems.
In general, reducing the total number of guns will affect very little. Taking guns away from HONEST people will accomplish exactly NOTHING, and may even make things worse, since the honest can no longer defend themselves. There have been studies on this. Defensive gun use numbers vary based on the politics of the person doing the study, but even low-ball numbers are in the hundreds of thousands of incidents each year. High end ranges in several million, but around a million times a year seems to be the media. Yes, a million times a year guns are used to prevent or deter crime.
Some of the most violent places have the most strict gun laws! You may say that the guns come from areas with looser gun laws, but I will respond that those areas with looser gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME. The net effect is that with strict gun laws, only the criminals are armed. If you have two cities: one with horrible crime and one that is doing OK, the obvious solution is to take the laws from the city that is failing and forcing those laws on the city that is doing great. That is like saying that a business that is making money should copy the business that is going bankrupt.
And please don't tell me that honest people don't stop crime with guns. An attempted mass shooting happened about one mile from where I live right now, and a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy.
So, you have proven my point. Don't make Assumptions that are not proven.
Facts are not unfair or biased. However, media can (and often does) choose which facts need to be reported.
As a quick example, homicides are down over 50% since their peak around 1992 or 1993. The last time homicides were this low was 1957 (facts, based on FBI statistics). However, I have actually seen articles about "What (insert candidate name here) is going to do about gun violence?" This already assumes several things, and it is possible that NONE of them are true:
1) Gun deaths are somehow worse than knife deaths
2) A criminal without a gun will suddenly stop being a criminal
3) That doing something will automatically make the public safer, instead of just disarming the honest people.
4) Gun laws will actually affect criminals, whose job actually involves breaking the law.
Each of those points could be a discussion by itself, and yet some "news" pretends that all assumptions are already decided.
That is now news, that is propaganda. It is actually shaping the discussion to stack the deck in your favor.
Interesting point about the watchdogs. Who actually IS a watchdog these days?
When I was a kid, you could generally trust the media. However, since the repeal of the "fairness doctrine," every media outlet is biased, and is really more of a propaganda machine than simply news.
Funny how the public keeps on electing people who have perfected lying to an art form.
I am not sure that I agree with this -- it is a bit of a gray zone.
If you pirate a track or an album, and then later pay for it, then who is the victim? Who is out their money? One customer still equals one sale of one track/album. Where is the loss?
For fans that have to have music the same day, download it illegally, and then purchase that track/album when it becomes available. That is a "win/win." Fans get music ASAP, labels and artists get money.
Thanks for the laugh. I could use one today.
Real fans WILL support the artist. I would expect that a real fan would download the track to get it first, and then pay for it later. Real fans don't want to rip off one of their favorite artists.
I actually saw 21 pilots a few years ago before they really became popular. It was a small venue that only held a couple hundred people. Funny, there were only two of them. I wonder where the other 19 were? (yes, that's a (not very good) joke)