There are too many people who believe "cuz 'merica" to stop the trend before it is too late. The stupid breed in far larger numbers than the intelligent.
I don't know of any 12-year-olds who can afford a weapon that costs a minimum of 5 figures and can manage to get forged documents that allow them to possess a BATF permit to own an automatic weapon. Maybe your comment was meant to say that police officers are criminally stupid as to think such a thing has every happened in the US.
And then there's Officer Thompson in Spokane, WA who was convicted in the death of a mentally-ill man who posed no threat to him. Otto Zehm was beaten with a nightstick for not immediately dropping the soda bottle he was holding in a convenience store (he was stopped because a call by two girls came in reporting "suspicious behavior" at a nearby ATM. He was then placed in hogtie restraints face-down until he stopped breathing. Police and prosecutors conspired to hide the one video recording which clearly showed absolutely everything that happened.
When Thompson was found guilty, every cop in Spokane who attended the trial saluted him as he walked out. The entire force here is corrupt, and will not accept that excessive force should be punishable by anything.
Fortunately, there's now a Federal probe into the entire city police department, and if the Council has any balls at all they'll mandate outside investigatory and punitive powers to the new police ombudsman's office when contract negotiations happen next. It's too bad the State commission that oversees appeals to the firing of public employees keeps re-instating fired cops who commit crimes while on duty. Once was a sheriff's deputy who exposed himself to a barista, and the other is a cop caught having sex with a prostitute in his patrol car.
Government investigations result in fines going to the government. They don't pay out to us petty people. Those hurt have to sue the companies to get any compensation.
Your contention that the quoted portion above is a strawman serves only to show you don't understand what a strawman argument is. It is when you refute something someone did not say. The quote directly addressed your particular logic, so you may argue that the example is not correct (which you did not), but since it was applied directly to an argument you made it cannot be described as a strawman.
An armed society is not a polite society by my admission only if I define polite the same way you do. I do not, so your statement is wrong. As I already gave my definition of polite in this context, your statement is disingenuous at best and a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation at worst. I was not in any way unclear of how I defined the term, and ignoring that is simply a method of trying to put words into my mouth. Is this always how you conduct yourself in debates? Not very polite...
You choose to define things conveniently to support your argument, and not how they were originally intended. Since it's pedantry instead of an actual argument, I'm not going to address it. As most pedants are wont to do, feel free to take it as a cop-out. I care not.
As I said in another reply to the same statement, I in no way said they were covered under the Geneva Convention. I simply stated they had less rights than those actually covered by the Geneva Convention.
While your point about German POWs is correct, the general statement about the US having a long history of sidestepping their treaty obligations is completely true. All one has to do is look at the treaties with Native Americans. The US still doesn't recognize reservations as truly sovereign states. They're only sovereign so long as that sovereignty does not interfere with what the US government wishes.
I wasn't aware that attempting rape was a form of argument, as that was the topic at hand. My comment about rape was regarding arguments between those who deemed a certain act as unacceptable and those who deemed it acceptable. The earlier statement was that any use of the phrase was an automatic argument-loser. If you disagree with my comment please tell me why the use of the term, when backed with a factual foundation, automatically undermines that factual foundation.
Does that mean saying "murdering someone who believes in a different religion is not acceptable" causes you to automatically lose an argument with a religious fundamentalist who is willing to kill those who do not believe as they do?
The threat of armed response does not imply one is a coward.
Nice strawman. I never said, nor has anyone else to my knowledge, that an armed society is a crime-free society. I said "deterrent," which is in no way equivalent to "crime-free." An armed society means there will be incidents of private firearms being used as a deterrent, something that would be almost unknown in a society where private firearms were illegal.
But that is exactly what the saying says: "an armed society is a polite society".
The saying does not in any way imply that polite societies cannot exist without arms. The saying does not negate other possibilities, it simply states that one route will have a specific effect. Your logic is the same as saying "Iced water is cold water" is equivalent to "Non-iced water cannot be cold." The statement that one precludes any other possibility is laughable.
You either mistake the meaning of "polite" in the statement or you are being intentionally pedantic to disguise the lack of basis for saying it means rude people should be killed. It has always referred to criminal activity, not general rudeness.
If the statement was equivalent to "might makes right," rural areas (which tend to be those with the highest proportion of firearm ownership by those who do not own them for criminal purposes) would be controlled by warlords. That this has not happened is by itself evidence enough that the two are not equivalent. Those people with firearms owned for non-criminal purposes have not imposed their will on others by the use of their superior might. Those areas where firearms are almost universally possessed by criminals are actually where you find the warlords.
There was no reason for him to exit his vehicle, as he had already called 911. He could have easily continued following Martin using his vehicle, rather than escalating the situation with a direct confrontation.
He was looking for trouble, which is the only reason one would exit their vehicle when he did. He was operating contrary to what anyone who cares about responsibly carrying a firearm should do, which is to avoid confrontations as often as possible.
You jam it by providing higher output from the jamming device than the reader can overcome. It's not that difficult, since the reader in a wearable bracelet (or in the gun) is not going to have a powerful transmission due to size, weight, and battery life concerns.
One does not imply the other. What it implies is that there are a number of people who would do bad things without the deterrent of firearms. That number is going to be a very small percentage of most populations. There are many reasons besides fear to support deterrents to crime. An "armed society" is not the reason most people are polite to each other; it's is a reason of very few, but a reason nonetheless. I would posit that most criminals are cowards, with the exception of those with a predilection to violent crime.
There are many things that one does not have any sort of duty to accept. Of course it's not an argument; it's a statement.
Raping children is not acceptable. There are those who would argue otherwise. Saying it's not acceptable doesn't make anyone "lose the argument." The same is true about many things far less extreme.
What matters is the basis upon which someone uses "it's not acceptable." That determines whether or not the statement has merit. A blanket statement saying it has no merit itself has no merit.
I've used a Cisco AP1232AG for a long time now, and it's been the most reliable piece of wireless kit I've ever used. What series of AP was giving you issues?
The general definition of "rural" precludes all towns, regardless of size. It is specifically the areas that are not within the confines of towns or cities.
Slashdot Mirror
With multiple deliveries in a metro area, many times there's no choice.
Indeed. Cops kill several orders of magnitude more innocent people than cops are killed per year.
There are too many people who believe "cuz 'merica" to stop the trend before it is too late. The stupid breed in far larger numbers than the intelligent.
That police chief was probably a SWAT officer who believes their subordinates can do no wrong.
Or, the chief fires the person and a State oversight commission re-instates them.
That was the lead-in to the allure of joining a SWAT team.
I don't know of any 12-year-olds who can afford a weapon that costs a minimum of 5 figures and can manage to get forged documents that allow them to possess a BATF permit to own an automatic weapon. Maybe your comment was meant to say that police officers are criminally stupid as to think such a thing has every happened in the US.
And then there's Officer Thompson in Spokane, WA who was convicted in the death of a mentally-ill man who posed no threat to him. Otto Zehm was beaten with a nightstick for not immediately dropping the soda bottle he was holding in a convenience store (he was stopped because a call by two girls came in reporting "suspicious behavior" at a nearby ATM. He was then placed in hogtie restraints face-down until he stopped breathing. Police and prosecutors conspired to hide the one video recording which clearly showed absolutely everything that happened.
When Thompson was found guilty, every cop in Spokane who attended the trial saluted him as he walked out. The entire force here is corrupt, and will not accept that excessive force should be punishable by anything.
Fortunately, there's now a Federal probe into the entire city police department, and if the Council has any balls at all they'll mandate outside investigatory and punitive powers to the new police ombudsman's office when contract negotiations happen next. It's too bad the State commission that oversees appeals to the firing of public employees keeps re-instating fired cops who commit crimes while on duty. Once was a sheriff's deputy who exposed himself to a barista, and the other is a cop caught having sex with a prostitute in his patrol car.
Government investigations result in fines going to the government. They don't pay out to us petty people. Those hurt have to sue the companies to get any compensation.
Your contention that the quoted portion above is a strawman serves only to show you don't understand what a strawman argument is. It is when you refute something someone did not say. The quote directly addressed your particular logic, so you may argue that the example is not correct (which you did not), but since it was applied directly to an argument you made it cannot be described as a strawman.
An armed society is not a polite society by my admission only if I define polite the same way you do. I do not, so your statement is wrong. As I already gave my definition of polite in this context, your statement is disingenuous at best and a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation at worst. I was not in any way unclear of how I defined the term, and ignoring that is simply a method of trying to put words into my mouth. Is this always how you conduct yourself in debates? Not very polite...
You choose to define things conveniently to support your argument, and not how they were originally intended. Since it's pedantry instead of an actual argument, I'm not going to address it. As most pedants are wont to do, feel free to take it as a cop-out. I care not.
If it is legally incorporated, it is not rural, regardless of "common usage."
As I said in another reply to the same statement, I in no way said they were covered under the Geneva Convention. I simply stated they had less rights than those actually covered by the Geneva Convention.
While your point about German POWs is correct, the general statement about the US having a long history of sidestepping their treaty obligations is completely true. All one has to do is look at the treaties with Native Americans. The US still doesn't recognize reservations as truly sovereign states. They're only sovereign so long as that sovereignty does not interfere with what the US government wishes.
I wasn't aware that attempting rape was a form of argument, as that was the topic at hand. My comment about rape was regarding arguments between those who deemed a certain act as unacceptable and those who deemed it acceptable. The earlier statement was that any use of the phrase was an automatic argument-loser. If you disagree with my comment please tell me why the use of the term, when backed with a factual foundation, automatically undermines that factual foundation.
Does that mean saying "murdering someone who believes in a different religion is not acceptable" causes you to automatically lose an argument with a religious fundamentalist who is willing to kill those who do not believe as they do?
The threat of armed response does not imply one is a coward.
Nice strawman. I never said, nor has anyone else to my knowledge, that an armed society is a crime-free society. I said "deterrent," which is in no way equivalent to "crime-free." An armed society means there will be incidents of private firearms being used as a deterrent, something that would be almost unknown in a society where private firearms were illegal.
But that is exactly what the saying says: "an armed society is a polite society".
The saying does not in any way imply that polite societies cannot exist without arms. The saying does not negate other possibilities, it simply states that one route will have a specific effect. Your logic is the same as saying "Iced water is cold water" is equivalent to "Non-iced water cannot be cold." The statement that one precludes any other possibility is laughable.
You either mistake the meaning of "polite" in the statement or you are being intentionally pedantic to disguise the lack of basis for saying it means rude people should be killed. It has always referred to criminal activity, not general rudeness.
If the statement was equivalent to "might makes right," rural areas (which tend to be those with the highest proportion of firearm ownership by those who do not own them for criminal purposes) would be controlled by warlords. That this has not happened is by itself evidence enough that the two are not equivalent. Those people with firearms owned for non-criminal purposes have not imposed their will on others by the use of their superior might. Those areas where firearms are almost universally possessed by criminals are actually where you find the warlords.
There was no reason for him to exit his vehicle, as he had already called 911. He could have easily continued following Martin using his vehicle, rather than escalating the situation with a direct confrontation.
My grandfather's technique was to take his children out at about the age of 7-8 and put a .30-06 to their shoulder.
No lasting damage, but puts a healthy respect for what a firearm can do both to you and to that at which you are shooting.
He was looking for trouble, which is the only reason one would exit their vehicle when he did. He was operating contrary to what anyone who cares about responsibly carrying a firearm should do, which is to avoid confrontations as often as possible.
You jam it by providing higher output from the jamming device than the reader can overcome. It's not that difficult, since the reader in a wearable bracelet (or in the gun) is not going to have a powerful transmission due to size, weight, and battery life concerns.
And yet police officers refuse to use the technology.
New models are based on old, proven technology, so the two have nothing even close to parity in determining which is reliable and which is not.
One does not imply the other. What it implies is that there are a number of people who would do bad things without the deterrent of firearms. That number is going to be a very small percentage of most populations. There are many reasons besides fear to support deterrents to crime. An "armed society" is not the reason most people are polite to each other; it's is a reason of very few, but a reason nonetheless. I would posit that most criminals are cowards, with the exception of those with a predilection to violent crime.
There are many things that one does not have any sort of duty to accept. Of course it's not an argument; it's a statement.
Raping children is not acceptable. There are those who would argue otherwise. Saying it's not acceptable doesn't make anyone "lose the argument." The same is true about many things far less extreme.
What matters is the basis upon which someone uses "it's not acceptable." That determines whether or not the statement has merit. A blanket statement saying it has no merit itself has no merit.
I'd second the 1200-series APs from Cisco. Haven't used any of the rest, so no comment there.
I've used a Cisco AP1232AG for a long time now, and it's been the most reliable piece of wireless kit I've ever used. What series of AP was giving you issues?
The general definition of "rural" precludes all towns, regardless of size. It is specifically the areas that are not within the confines of towns or cities.