Judging by past performance, they will jump straight from "Let's go start poking around him" to busting his neighbors door down and shooting his neighbors dog.
"we are all criminals, and have more in common with a coke dealer than our federal representatives. The coke dealer, for example,/works/ for a living"
Dude! If I had mod points, well, I wouldn't be modding you up because I've commented 10 times or more in this discussion but if I had mod points and hadn't commented already, well, I wouldn't care enough about the subject to get this deep into the thread so I still wouldn't mod you up.
Which would be sad, because you would have deserved it:)
Not for someone with a 6th-grade education who bought the first gun he could find off the streets because his girlfriend got insulted at a party.
Like I said, sheltered.
"
This from the guy who thinks someone with a 6th grade education and goes around shooting people for insulting his girlfriend isn't going to leave all sorts of other, far more useful, evidence. Pot, Meet kettle.
Actually, impossible for an unarmed defender to counter if the criminal has chosen his victim with any degree of care. That little old lady in a disarmed society is an easy mark. In an armed society she could be a lethal threat.
So basically, when you deride people for their fear of "black helicopters" "coming for their guns", you're simply softening them up for the moment when you actually do come for their guns. Yes, we know you want to take our guns. Which is why we don't like firearm registries. Because it makes it easier for you to take our guns. Don't pretend you don't want to take our guns then rant about how we shouldn't have guns. It just makes you look ridiculous.
"And in some of your citations, such as the one from Fox, it would likely have been a non-story if there was no guns involved - instead it turned into a shootout which could easily have left all the three involved dead - plus innocent bystanders."
Sorry Lulu Campbell, Kyrsjo would rather that 57 year old women such as yourself be required to defend themselves with knives or their bare hands against two men bent on mayhem than that you have the means to defend yourself effectively. Apparently, it's better that you be beaten and robbed and the event be a "non story" than that you survive unscathed.
The point that those people who used a gun defensively to stop crimes other than murder, like burglary, rape and battery would have been better off being burgled, raped and battered really doesn't need much negating.
It's part of the reason for juries, true. Judges OTOH are bound by even the silliest consequences of laws applied to situations that the people writing the law didn't envisage (or, if I'm going to be paranoid me, that the people writing the law fully intended but wanted to be able to throw their hands up in horror when it actually happened)
Perhaps - but we do license people to drive and demand a minimum training level before we let them - exactly to reduce the risk of them killing somebody. So why is requiring at least a high skill level and safety awareness before buying something DESIGNED to kill things such a big deal ?
Because you can accomplish 2 things with those sort of regulations.
OVERESTIMATE your ability and UNDERESTIMATE the danger of escalating such a situation. Surrendering small private property to a criminal to avoid escalating to physical damage should not cause such a sharp cut to your ego
The crux of the problem is right here. In your arrogance, you presume to believe that other people ought to comply with your own risk management strategy rather than their own. Having a gun when attacked does not necessarily mean that one must whip the gun out and start blazing away. Having a gun gives you choices which you want to take away from people who are most proximate to the threat in question. You are not competent to assess that threat because you are not there.
Also, USPS gets breaks on motor vehicle registration, cheap government loans and breaks on many other government costs of doing business. See the wikipedia article on USPS.
What about radical Islamist conduct to date has convinced you that the certainty of more muslim than infidel deaths as a result of a given course of action will deter them from that course of action?
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by past performance, they will jump straight from "Let's go start poking around him" to busting his neighbors door down and shooting his neighbors dog.
"we are all criminals, and have more in common with a coke dealer than our federal representatives. The coke dealer, for example, /works/ for a living"
Dude! If I had mod points, well, I wouldn't be modding you up because I've commented 10 times or more in this discussion but if I had mod points and hadn't commented already, well, I wouldn't care enough about the subject to get this deep into the thread so I still wouldn't mod you up.
Which would be sad, because you would have deserved it :)
"
Not for someone with a 6th-grade education who bought the first gun he could find off the streets because his girlfriend got insulted at a party.
Like I said, sheltered.
"
This from the guy who thinks someone with a 6th grade education and goes around shooting people for insulting his girlfriend isn't going to leave all sorts of other, far more useful, evidence. Pot, Meet kettle.
Actually, impossible for an unarmed defender to counter if the criminal has chosen his victim with any degree of care. That little old lady in a disarmed society is an easy mark. In an armed society she could be a lethal threat.
So basically, when you deride people for their fear of "black helicopters" "coming for their guns", you're simply softening them up for the moment when you actually do come for their guns. Yes, we know you want to take our guns. Which is why we don't like firearm registries. Because it makes it easier for you to take our guns. Don't pretend you don't want to take our guns then rant about how we shouldn't have guns. It just makes you look ridiculous.
dude, you've seen the posts by pro gun control folks in this article. You seriously believe many of them don't want to gather up everyones guns?
"And in some of your citations, such as the one from Fox, it would likely have been a non-story if there was no guns involved - instead it turned into a shootout which could easily have left all the three involved dead - plus innocent bystanders."
Sorry Lulu Campbell, Kyrsjo would rather that 57 year old women such as yourself be required to defend themselves with knives or their bare hands against two men bent on mayhem than that you have the means to defend yourself effectively. Apparently, it's better that you be beaten and robbed and the event be a "non story" than that you survive unscathed.
The point that those people who used a gun defensively to stop crimes other than murder, like burglary, rape and battery would have been better off being burgled, raped and battered really doesn't need much negating.
It's part of the reason for juries, true. Judges OTOH are bound by even the silliest consequences of laws applied to situations that the people writing the law didn't envisage (or, if I'm going to be paranoid me, that the people writing the law fully intended but wanted to be able to throw their hands up in horror when it actually happened)
Because you can accomplish 2 things with those sort of regulations.
It's the second possibility that is the big deal
OVERESTIMATE your ability and UNDERESTIMATE the danger of escalating such a situation. Surrendering small private property to a criminal to avoid escalating to physical damage should not cause such a sharp cut to your ego
The crux of the problem is right here. In your arrogance, you presume to believe that other people ought to comply with your own risk management strategy rather than their own. Having a gun when attacked does not necessarily mean that one must whip the gun out and start blazing away. Having a gun gives you choices which you want to take away from people who are most proximate to the threat in question. You are not competent to assess that threat because you are not there .
"More Inconvenience to those barbaric gun owners?" [Monty burns finger steepling gesture] "Eeeeeeeexcelent" :)
"which would effectively ban private party transfers" Mission accomplished.
good luck mugging someone from that vantage point.
Also, USPS gets breaks on motor vehicle registration, cheap government loans and breaks on many other government costs of doing business. See the wikipedia article on USPS.
Actually, no. They're conducting a criminal investigation into welfare fraud.
If it's worth knowing, it's worth getting a warrant
I dunno, when video of a single incident from seven separate dash cameras manage to go missing, I'd say that's pretty creative :)
Great, so you've accounted for approximately 1 out of every ten stop and frisks. The rest were just suspicionless violations of individual rights.
"Look at any science or engineering school in the U.S. and it becomes pretty clear. There are many, many more foreigners than Americans
The question then becomes, why are foreigners attending American science and engineering schools if Americans make louse scientists and engineers?
Catastrophic America's Got Weasels
So long as I don't have to be anywhere near them after they've eaten, it's all good.
What about radical Islamist conduct to date has convinced you that the certainty of more muslim than infidel deaths as a result of a given course of action will deter them from that course of action?
The summary?
Floppy hats and long hair across the face.