And herein lies the problem. You don't protect one citizen when you permit them to keep and bear arms, you simply refrain from preventing them from protecting themselves. I neither need nor want your protection. You can keep it. Particularly when your "protection" explicitly and deliberately means leaving me vulnerable to violent assault.
You're disregard for individual safety is truly horrifying. Seriously. You'd rather people got mugged than that criminals committed crimes that did not threaten individual safety. It's disgusting. The notion that protecting individual citizens is bad for a population at large is equally vile.
As a guess, I bet most "poisoning" is prescription drugs. Once again, women are less messy than men.
Women attempt suicide 3 times more often than men, but men succeed more often than women. Which leads me to speculate that many of the women attempting suicide are "poisoning" themselves not in the hope of dying, but as a subconscious plea for help. Men, OTOH, tend to use more reliable means suggesting to me that many of them just want to die. They're looking for different outcomes, explaining their different methods. Aside from the women attempting suicide 3 times as often as men statistic though, this is pure speculation on my part.
"...any suggestion that guns should be regulated in the same way as cars makes people go ballistic."
If someone wanted to ban cars but was unable to accomplish that end using up front means, they could do so by making the administrative, financial and training requirements so ridiculously intrusive that no one would be able to legally operate a motor vehicle. But nobody wants to ban cars (I think...). Guns, on the other hand...
on the other other hand, a mugger doesn't particularly want to commit murder, cops pursue those crimes a lot more carefully than a simple mugging, so while shooting someone in the back works, it's not the strategy of choice even in parts of the US where the little old lady actually might be armed. In fact, crime statistics suggest that when she might be armed, she's a lot less likely to get attacked in the first place. Criminals tend to turn to property crime rather than directly confronting citizens or, if they really _must_ confront a citizen, they attack people who are unlikely to be armed. For example, people leaving airports have been followed and a minor collision is sufficient to get them out of their car.
is the $12 cap a result of the actual cost being $12 or is it a result of the government directing the manufacturer to charge the public no more than $12 for microstamping?
If the cap is the result of government direction, I'm thinking the manufacturers aren't going to just eat the difference.
It also adds paperwork to gun owners already buried in paperwork required to comply with scores of different laws. You're going to have to file paperwork whenever the pin wears out, particularly if the law defines a pin on which the microstamp has been destroyed by simple use as worn and therefore required to be replaced (and the replacement registered). Which is the point. Bury gun owners in enough paperwork and administrative minutiae and they'll screw up eventually and be a lawbreaker no longer permitted to keep and bear arms. Win! Or the paperwork will get "lost" after the gun owner has filed it and the gun owner will be a lawbreaker no longer permitted to keep and bear arms. Win!
Both sides know the game being played here, the gun owners know the anti gun folk want to end their right to keep and bear arms and will do it by any means necessary and the anti gun folk know that the gun owners know what they are up to and don't care, except inasmuch as it provides an excuse to portray gun owners as paranoids in need of psychiatric help (and therefore barred from keeping and bearing arms)
Some crimes which were committed by people too stupid to so much as police up their own brass and were therefore almost certain to have left other, far more damning, evidence as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What, letting someone approach you is a crime now?
Like you, I don't ascribe one strange season to CAGW or its absence It's still interesting
By requiring them to buy a product from those same profit-mongering (that's a bad thing, right?) corporations? Good plan!
Or perhaps that more attention is being paid to dramatic shifts in weather patterns.
Maybe. But apparently you can be taxed for exercising it.
What do you suppose the white man was if not illegal immigrants?
for the purpose of the law under discussion, an Arizona drivers licence ends all inquiries wrt immigration status.
You're proposing that the US should mirror image policies that got the former occupants conquered? How'd that work out for them?
And herein lies the problem. You don't protect one citizen when you permit them to keep and bear arms, you simply refrain from preventing them from protecting themselves. I neither need nor want your protection. You can keep it. Particularly when your "protection" explicitly and deliberately means leaving me vulnerable to violent assault.
You're disregard for individual safety is truly horrifying. Seriously. You'd rather people got mugged than that criminals committed crimes that did not threaten individual safety. It's disgusting. The notion that protecting individual citizens is bad for a population at large is equally vile.
Women attempt suicide 3 times more often than men, but men succeed more often than women. Which leads me to speculate that many of the women attempting suicide are "poisoning" themselves not in the hope of dying, but as a subconscious plea for help. Men, OTOH, tend to use more reliable means suggesting to me that many of them just want to die. They're looking for different outcomes, explaining their different methods. Aside from the women attempting suicide 3 times as often as men statistic though, this is pure speculation on my part.
"...any suggestion that guns should be regulated in the same way as cars makes people go ballistic." If someone wanted to ban cars but was unable to accomplish that end using up front means, they could do so by making the administrative, financial and training requirements so ridiculously intrusive that no one would be able to legally operate a motor vehicle. But nobody wants to ban cars (I think...). Guns, on the other hand...
You're assuming gun rights advocates agree with those things?
on the other other hand, a mugger doesn't particularly want to commit murder, cops pursue those crimes a lot more carefully than a simple mugging, so while shooting someone in the back works, it's not the strategy of choice even in parts of the US where the little old lady actually might be armed. In fact, crime statistics suggest that when she might be armed, she's a lot less likely to get attacked in the first place. Criminals tend to turn to property crime rather than directly confronting citizens or, if they really _must_ confront a citizen, they attack people who are unlikely to be armed. For example, people leaving airports have been followed and a minor collision is sufficient to get them out of their car.
is the $12 cap a result of the actual cost being $12 or is it a result of the government directing the manufacturer to charge the public no more than $12 for microstamping? If the cap is the result of government direction, I'm thinking the manufacturers aren't going to just eat the difference.
It also adds paperwork to gun owners already buried in paperwork required to comply with scores of different laws. You're going to have to file paperwork whenever the pin wears out, particularly if the law defines a pin on which the microstamp has been destroyed by simple use as worn and therefore required to be replaced (and the replacement registered). Which is the point. Bury gun owners in enough paperwork and administrative minutiae and they'll screw up eventually and be a lawbreaker no longer permitted to keep and bear arms. Win! Or the paperwork will get "lost" after the gun owner has filed it and the gun owner will be a lawbreaker no longer permitted to keep and bear arms. Win!
Both sides know the game being played here, the gun owners know the anti gun folk want to end their right to keep and bear arms and will do it by any means necessary and the anti gun folk know that the gun owners know what they are up to and don't care, except inasmuch as it provides an excuse to portray gun owners as paranoids in need of psychiatric help (and therefore barred from keeping and bearing arms)
OK, is that a whoosh, or did I just get whooshed?
Will be required to have microstamping too. Just... BECAUSE! OK?
Where "everything they currently do" includes no knock warrants at 2 am and shooting the family dog, I don't find this all that reassuring
"when you hold up a liquor store in the middle of the night you don't hang around to police your brass"
Revolver
So the cops will wind up prosecuting some random hot chick who probably wont get convicted anyway, what with being both hot, and a chick. Bonus! :)
How often does it go even that far? When they shoot the mayors dog perhaps?
" I doubt this is a real solution to the problem, however it at least attempts to deal with the problem"
Something Must Be Done!
This is something!
Therefore it Must Be Done!
Some crimes which were committed by people too stupid to so much as police up their own brass and were therefore almost certain to have left other, far more damning, evidence as well.