The "special cutout" is that guns are designed to kill. Automobiles are not. Liability should only come into play when the tool doesn't do the job that it was intended to do. Oh, and I'll counter your "bedrock principle" with a legal system that the typical civilian can't afford...which side do most trial lawyers donate to again?
I see this bullshit posted so frequently that I have to respond.
Please remember that the military is made up of people who volunteered. Except in the event of an all out civil war, they are never going to be used against our own civilians. Even if they were ordered to, I think you'd find that most would disobey that kind of order. And for the record, YOU are not important enough for the government to waste a $60-$70k Hellfire missile on. The history of war over the last hundred years has shown how much damage individuals can do to well armed armies...please go read and learn something.
That is why you get a pump shotgun for home protection. The sound of the cocking of a pump action (geez, that looks bad) will chase most folks away. And as long as you get a shotgun with a large spread (larger diameter or shorter barrel), you'll not have to aim so well.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/best-gun-for-home-defense/ Highly recommend this article to anyone thinking that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon. Some quick points from the article: The pattern from a shotgun at short range isn't much larger than the barrel, making you just as likely to miss as with a pistol or rifle. The capacity of most shotguns is tiny (typically 4+1) in comparison to many handguns. Typically, smaller people may have trouble handling the kick from a suitable size shotgun...12 gauge In close quarters, your opponent may be able to push the barrel out of the way...much more difficult to do with a handgun.
Model Ts and Airplanes are not an apples to apples comparison. Both are much more complex than simple handguns. Airplanes take a tremendous amount of maintenance, something that an individual consumer is completely unable to handle. And most couldn't handle the maintenance on the Model T.
Even if you made something that was 99.5% reliable, Consumers wouldn't buy it...who wants to take that 1 in 200 chance that it wouldn't work when you really needed it.
At least when I was in the military, we had to drill on disassembling the gun completely and then reassembling it both as fast as possible, and then again the same drill in total darkness. Just inserting the bolt and loading it would take three seconds at most. Until we knew the gun, we were considered a danger, not an asset.
Depends on which branch you were in. In my nearly five years in the AF, we only fired in basic training, and once again to qualify before going overseas. We only disassembled the weapon in basic...once, and not in the dark.
From Wikipedia: Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer.[2] In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time
Your assertions are debatable. You don't need to defend yourself in urban areas? Maybe not from wildlife, but I guarantee you, I wouldn't step foot in Detroit w/o some kind of protection. How about during emergency situations? There's been lots of looters after Sandy.
As for self defense against government tyranny, we've seen that argument here many times. Hopefully, it would never come to this point, and I'm not talking about little things like Waco, or Ruby Ridge. The military would never be used on the populace here, and even if it came to that, most of the military wouldn't obey an order to do so...volunteer forces shooting Americans?...don't think so.
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but "open carry" has always been legal by default, except in locations that ban guns in general. Washington D.C. for example.
If you really did visit, you would have known that they're located in Fairfax, Virginia (I used to drive by it every day for many years). That may be nitpicking since the two locations are relatively close, but then maybe you should compare the difference in murder rates between those locals. You'll notice a very significantly higher rate of murder in Washington, where there was for many years a prohibition on handguns.
Ah, the sacrifices we must make. I did the same with my first wife. As you get older, your priorities will reverse in order. I can recommend a good divorce attorney.
It was a failure because they made them in a size that was nearly identical to the quarter. When you can't reach into your pocket and distinguish them without looking, it's a poor design.
I don't think we're in disagreement on this issue. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I don't need is people getting in my face about it. I'm also fine with a legally binding relationship (with all the same rights and responsibilities), though admit I'm conflicted about calling it "marriage" because you don't just get to redefine a term that has been used for a few thousand years. I'm not a religious person, but I can see how that would be offensive to those who are, and there's no logical reason that I can see to not just call it something else. And finally, and I'm not trying to insinuate that this is a gay thing, but as a teen, I was approached by a guy in his 40s...that dude needed help. As did a family friend a few years later...although I was about 21, he was 50 something, and it's a good thing he took NO as an answer. Homophobic?...no, antipedo?...yes.
What is not permitted is actual hate speech, behavior intended to incite violence toward a group, or intentionally cause emotional harm (arguably another form of violence, simply a non-physical one). The "crybaby Republicans" that you and the GP mention are welcome to cry all they like about this policy, and that is their right.
Ah, and this is where you're wrong, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. Go look up the Westboro Baptist Church case. For the record, I don't agree with the Church (would it be unchristian of me to say I hate them?), but I'm in favor of protecting everyone's rights to free speech. The right to not be offended isn't in the Constitution, and this PC attitude of trying to make it a right is morally wrong. If you can't handle being verbally offended, you should have never been let out of elementary school. It's really too bad that this had to be the WSJ and Coulter, instead of say MSN and Bill Maher. If it were, I'd be here defending the "crybaby" Dems right to free speech, and we wouldn't be having this disagreement.
Excellent post. As a conservative, you and I will likely disagree on many issues, but I would never try to inhibit, and would in fact defend your right to speak your mind.
To the article, it was disappointing to me that Ann Coulter (though I'm conservative, I'm not a fan of hers) was a lead subject in the article, because I know that alone probably turned off many people immediately. If we replaced her with someone like Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, or Rachal Maddow, and that person wasn't allowed to speak, maybe more of the left wing would see the same point.
If you don't like the message someone is sending, you don't have to get "offended". You can leave, consider the source, change the channel, or simply listen (and maybe learn the other side's position).
But thanks to interracial breeding recently enabled by the jet age, the human race is sort of reuniting millenia of divergent evolution to specific climates, and converging again on what people from the seat of humanity would look like.
Doesn't that assume that the dominant genes are the ones that the Greeks originally had? My guess is that we most certainly would converge, but I doubt it would be back to the origin.
Unfortunately, we've already allowed this to occur. If someone is "offended", you can and will be fired in most places. When did we gain the right to not be offended?
Bob...for probably the first and last time ever on Slashdot, I'm going to agree with AKMarc here. A+ and many other certs are useless. As a requirement for their positions, we require (because the government requires it) Security+. Having that rating means absolutely nothing about your ability to do the job, and is 100% about welfare, and a constant revenue stream, for the companies providing the "training"...yes, I'm talking about you CompTIA. Anyone with half a brain can spend a few days with the Sec+ book and pass the exam. It's also about people in positions of power being able to CYA, and say that they're only hiring qualified people, and this gives them a convenient out.
I get to interview potential new hires, and the last thing I give a shit about (except the required Sec+) is their certifications.
To the immature jackasses who modded the parent Flamebait, shame on you. Naive, maybe for Slashdot, but spot on for his assessment of the GP's (Pdoink) post. Take your food fight back to high school, and leave the serious debate to the adults please.
Good thing Gore invented the Interweb. How do you suppose things would have looked w/o the bubble? And I don't mean to let Bush off the hook, but we can't blame him for the housing bubble, just like we can't give credit to Clinton for this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Crawl back under the bridge troll.
Wow, if I was him, I'd say you're welcome.
The "special cutout" is that guns are designed to kill. Automobiles are not. Liability should only come into play when the tool doesn't do the job that it was intended to do. Oh, and I'll counter your "bedrock principle" with a legal system that the typical civilian can't afford...which side do most trial lawyers donate to again?
I see this bullshit posted so frequently that I have to respond.
Please remember that the military is made up of people who volunteered. Except in the event of an all out civil war, they are never going to be used against our own civilians. Even if they were ordered to, I think you'd find that most would disobey that kind of order. And for the record, YOU are not important enough for the government to waste a $60-$70k Hellfire missile on. The history of war over the last hundred years has shown how much damage individuals can do to well armed armies...please go read and learn something.
That is why you get a pump shotgun for home protection. The sound of the cocking of a pump action (geez, that looks bad) will chase most folks away. And as long as you get a shotgun with a large spread (larger diameter or shorter barrel), you'll not have to aim so well.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/best-gun-for-home-defense/
Highly recommend this article to anyone thinking that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon. Some quick points from the article:
The pattern from a shotgun at short range isn't much larger than the barrel, making you just as likely to miss as with a pistol or rifle.
The capacity of most shotguns is tiny (typically 4+1) in comparison to many handguns.
Typically, smaller people may have trouble handling the kick from a suitable size shotgun...12 gauge
In close quarters, your opponent may be able to push the barrel out of the way...much more difficult to do with a handgun.
Model Ts and Airplanes are not an apples to apples comparison. Both are much more complex than simple handguns. Airplanes take a tremendous amount of maintenance, something that an individual consumer is completely unable to handle. And most couldn't handle the maintenance on the Model T.
Even if you made something that was 99.5% reliable, Consumers wouldn't buy it...who wants to take that 1 in 200 chance that it wouldn't work when you really needed it.
We could give reliable stun guns to every teacher, and train them, without fear that students would get killed due to negligence.
Why do people think that these weapons are non-lethal? Please read:
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/01/4188/first-study-test-real-world-effects-stun-gun-use-raises-questions-abo
At least when I was in the military, we had to drill on disassembling the gun completely and then reassembling it both as fast as possible, and then again the same drill in total darkness. Just inserting the bolt and loading it would take three seconds at most.
Until we knew the gun, we were considered a danger, not an asset.
Depends on which branch you were in. In my nearly five years in the AF, we only fired in basic training, and once again to qualify before going overseas. We only disassembled the weapon in basic...once, and not in the dark.
From Wikipedia:
Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer.[2] In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time
Your assertions are debatable. You don't need to defend yourself in urban areas? Maybe not from wildlife, but I guarantee you, I wouldn't step foot in Detroit w/o some kind of protection. How about during emergency situations? There's been lots of looters after Sandy.
As for self defense against government tyranny, we've seen that argument here many times. Hopefully, it would never come to this point, and I'm not talking about little things like Waco, or Ruby Ridge. The military would never be used on the populace here, and even if it came to that, most of the military wouldn't obey an order to do so...volunteer forces shooting Americans?...don't think so.
... and some are even allowing open carry.
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but "open carry" has always been legal by default, except in locations that ban guns in general. Washington D.C. for example.
If you really did visit, you would have known that they're located in Fairfax, Virginia (I used to drive by it every day for many years). That may be nitpicking since the two locations are relatively close, but then maybe you should compare the difference in murder rates between those locals. You'll notice a very significantly higher rate of murder in Washington, where there was for many years a prohibition on handguns.
Ah, the sacrifices we must make. I did the same with my first wife. As you get older, your priorities will reverse in order. I can recommend a good divorce attorney.
It was a failure because they made them in a size that was nearly identical to the quarter. When you can't reach into your pocket and distinguish them without looking, it's a poor design.
I don't think we're in disagreement on this issue. I couldn't care less if someone is gay. What I don't need is people getting in my face about it. I'm also fine with a legally binding relationship (with all the same rights and responsibilities), though admit I'm conflicted about calling it "marriage" because you don't just get to redefine a term that has been used for a few thousand years. I'm not a religious person, but I can see how that would be offensive to those who are, and there's no logical reason that I can see to not just call it something else. And finally, and I'm not trying to insinuate that this is a gay thing, but as a teen, I was approached by a guy in his 40s...that dude needed help. As did a family friend a few years later...although I was about 21, he was 50 something, and it's a good thing he took NO as an answer. Homophobic?...no, antipedo?...yes.
What is not permitted is actual hate speech, behavior intended to incite violence toward a group, or intentionally cause emotional harm (arguably another form of violence, simply a non-physical one). The "crybaby Republicans" that you and the GP mention are welcome to cry all they like about this policy, and that is their right.
Ah, and this is where you're wrong, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. Go look up the Westboro Baptist Church case. For the record, I don't agree with the Church (would it be unchristian of me to say I hate them?), but I'm in favor of protecting everyone's rights to free speech. The right to not be offended isn't in the Constitution, and this PC attitude of trying to make it a right is morally wrong. If you can't handle being verbally offended, you should have never been let out of elementary school. It's really too bad that this had to be the WSJ and Coulter, instead of say MSN and Bill Maher. If it were, I'd be here defending the "crybaby" Dems right to free speech, and we wouldn't be having this disagreement.
Excellent post. As a conservative, you and I will likely disagree on many issues, but I would never try to inhibit, and would in fact defend your right to speak your mind.
To the article, it was disappointing to me that Ann Coulter (though I'm conservative, I'm not a fan of hers) was a lead subject in the article, because I know that alone probably turned off many people immediately. If we replaced her with someone like Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, or Rachal Maddow, and that person wasn't allowed to speak, maybe more of the left wing would see the same point.
If you don't like the message someone is sending, you don't have to get "offended". You can leave, consider the source, change the channel, or simply listen (and maybe learn the other side's position).
Wait till you try the Mongolian BBQ
But thanks to interracial breeding recently enabled by the jet age, the human race is sort of reuniting millenia of divergent evolution to specific climates, and converging again on what people from the seat of humanity would look like.
Doesn't that assume that the dominant genes are the ones that the Greeks originally had? My guess is that we most certainly would converge, but I doubt it would be back to the origin.
He wouldn't know anything about DNA, quantum mechanics, evolution, economics, astronomy, virology, microbiology, ad nauseum.
Neither would anyone in the bible belt.
I see what you did there. Nice troll. Now go play in the street.
Oh, you meant the bill signed into law by...OMG, it's not Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
Unfortunately, we've already allowed this to occur. If someone is "offended", you can and will be fired in most places. When did we gain the right to not be offended?
Bob...for probably the first and last time ever on Slashdot, I'm going to agree with AKMarc here. A+ and many other certs are useless. As a requirement for their positions, we require (because the government requires it) Security+. Having that rating means absolutely nothing about your ability to do the job, and is 100% about welfare, and a constant revenue stream, for the companies providing the "training"...yes, I'm talking about you CompTIA. Anyone with half a brain can spend a few days with the Sec+ book and pass the exam. It's also about people in positions of power being able to CYA, and say that they're only hiring qualified people, and this gives them a convenient out.
I get to interview potential new hires, and the last thing I give a shit about (except the required Sec+) is their certifications.
See subject
To the immature jackasses who modded the parent Flamebait, shame on you. Naive, maybe for Slashdot, but spot on for his assessment of the GP's (Pdoink) post. Take your food fight back to high school, and leave the serious debate to the adults please.
Good thing Gore invented the Interweb. How do you suppose things would have looked w/o the bubble? And I don't mean to let Bush off the hook, but we can't blame him for the housing bubble, just like we can't give credit to Clinton for this one.