ATTN. SPECOPS AND GECKO45 my secret username is CIDDECEP and I am your S2. My authorization code is Six Wun Quebec Oscar Fife. Your presence here is tactically dangerous and compromises our overall mission parameter. Cease and desist all activity on this board. Our "enemies" are deft at computer hacking and may trace you back to our primary locale. You have forced me to compromise my situation to protect your vulnerable flank. This issue will be addressed later.
While turning what was once a crime (marijuana use or possession) into a legal act will eliminate the instances of crime for that act (obviously, since it's no longer a crime), don't kid yourself into believing that anyone in the drug trade will suddenly pick up their newspapers and look for a legitimate job. Criminals do illegal things for profit because they are more profitable than the same amount of effort in a legal enterprise, and they feel the benefits outweigh the risks of getting caught. Legalizing drugs will not completely eliminate the illegal drug trade, nor will it put any significant dent in the violent crime rate among career criminals and the collateral damage their activities produce.
Old data on defense uses of firearms, from 1995:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
I haven't done the research recently but since concealed carry permits are available in more states now than 1995, I might be inclined to think the defensive use has gone up, or at least been maintained with population growth. The problem with data like this is, generally a victim that deters a crime with no witnesses might not even report the crime ever happened. You'd be surprised how many failed crimes don't get reported, regardless of the reason for the failure.
Child deaths, 12 was off the top of my head. It ranges depends on how you view the data. Here's the stuff I've found for 2002/2003. If you count all firearm related deaths (which include intentional homocide, accidental police shootings, suicides, etc) they're only 2.73 times more likely to die from motor vehicle. If you only count accidental deaths, they are 50 times more likely to die by automobile. Sorry for spreading misinformation.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/Nat'l%20Data%20Webpage%202002_files/US2002.pdfhttp://www.childdeathreview.org/2003%20Data/US2003.pdf
I personally find it interesting how consistent the data is from year to year.
You also don't hear about the over 2 million crimes stopped every year from law abiding citizens using their right to self defense. Or that those children are 12 times more likely to die in an automobile accident. Just accept what the media and the government tells you and all will be well.
'Yuppie sports', that (aside from perhaps biking) grew directly out of survival and exploration skills? As opposed to stick-and-ball sports that serve no purpose except for recreation and exercise? I guarantee I've learned many more useful skills through camping, kayak fishing, climbing, and hiking than any sport involving a ball. REI might market to the urban wannabe adventurer, but the products they carry are actually quite good and the sports they promote are far more intriguing than any spectator sport.
If you'd like some reading that presents the facts about the history and context of the second amendment, I suggest A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment. The guy offers a disclaimer that he does believe the 2A supports an individual right. However, he presents both sides, with full text quotations, not the partial texts that are often offered from BOTH sides.
Your suggestion that you can not tell who or should not have a gun is somewhat well founded. It's true that you cannot pick out the guy with the flawless background (investigated via the FBI) that will someday use that firearm to commit a crime. The same can be said for the guy that will eventually drive his car into the front of a building and kill the mother buying a coffee at 7-11. You've probably heard this before, but I'll say it again. The outright ban of firearm ownership from law abiding citizens in an urban setting leaves you with a defenseless population against a defensive criminal front. Criminals get weapons. They don't go through an FBI investigation to get them.
Also, to suggest that an armed populace is not a deterrent to a tyrannical takeover, well, history says otherwise.
And even if you disagree with all of these things, I have one more question. Why are you so quick to take away what I enjoy so much? I shoot more in a month than most people do in their whole lives because it's FUN. Across all disciplines: trap, skeet, sporting clays, high powered rifle, rimfire target, steel plate pistol, practical pistol, bullseye pistol, cowboy action renactments, the list goes on.
The 'gun rights' folks are one of the few 'activists groups' that never wanted to CHANGE anything. We want to keep what we have. That has been the stance since the beginning. Why can't you just leave us alone? These laws are treating a symptom of the criminal leniency in this country, not the underlying problem. Let's kill unborn children, but let violent criminals skirt the death penalty. Let's 'reform' inmates so they can be let out and turn them into repeat offenders.
There's a reason the political left chose 'assault weapons' as their term of endearment for the target of choice in their continued infringement on civil liberties. I have asked a number of legislators in New Jersey why they feel the need to ban modern firearms. Their answer is that they have never heard of such a ban.
'Assault Firearms' are nothing more than MODERN firearms. The so called 'evil features' do not make it any more lethal. 'Why do you need a flashhider?' Because when I shoot at night matches, I don't like being blinded by the first shot. Ignore the fact that flashiders do nothing to hide the flash seen by the TARGET. That would be too rational.
'Why do you need a pistol grip?' Ever seen a good hunting rifle? They have thumbhole stocks. Remove some wood, and you're left with a pistol grip.
'Why do you need a bayonet lug?' Why the fuck not? How many people have been bayonetted by a dude with a firearm?
Come on people. Start thinking for yourself. Stop asking 'why do you need....?' Start asking 'Whats the problem with having...?'
I don't know that you can necessarily make the jump between having Linux run their intranet server and the political candidate being a steward to open source in government. I know the/. community as a whole think's Mr. Obama is the FSM incarnate, but come on now.
I have friends who work in the sector who get nervous when they fly to the US even though they are developers, its just madness that the US seems to thinks gambling is a massive evil, in a country that things gun ownership is a right.
I take offense to both of those comments. I don't see how the US as a whole thinks gambling is evil. Do you know how many casinos and racetracks are in this country? Take a look
Tell me again why gun ownership is not an individual right? What is inherently evil about gun ownership? Have you noticed that when the UK enacted strict gun control, the knife crime went way up in proportion? I'm sure that's just a coincidence though. There's no way that crime is crime, and that fundamental social issues are fundamental social issues, regardless of the tool involved to commit those crimes. I'm sure guns are the cause of violent crime. Yep, completely sure of it.
Diesels also carry a premium when you purchase the vehicle, apart from the higher cost of the fuel. From the Honda UK website, all the same trim level:
1.4 Civic: 14530GBP or 25,603 USD
1.8 Civic: 15180GBP or 26,748 USD
CTDi Civic: 16480GBP or 29,039 USD
This isn't exclusive to Honda. VW does the same thing. So when you're trying to see how much money you're saving with a diesel, see how long it takes to recoup that $3500.
Aside from zinc plated screws for rust resistance and zinc phosphate coating for parkerizing, only the cheapest handguns ever used zinc for a major part of the firearm. Lorcin, Jennings, etc used an all-zinc frame to keep the costs down at the time since they are easy to cast and machine. A few 'saturday night special' revolver frames were also made from zinc. Zinc is a very poor metal to use for structural firearm parts, especially in something like a revolver where all the energy is transfer to the bullet and back to the cylinder/frame. The semi-autos are a slight bit better because some of the energy is transfered into the recoil spring and used to activate the slide. I have personally fired a Lorcin L22 and I felt that if I dropped it, the frame and slide would probably crack from the impact.
Why don't we send you over to the sandbox to ensure that our HMMWVs, Bradleys, Abrams, and every other military vehicle are compliant with your proposed mileage standards. Are you really that jaded to think that fuel economy should come at any cost? Are you going to tell the driver of an M1A2 that he just went from a 65mph top speed down to 15mph because we need our military vehicles to comply? Or tell the boys strapping armor plate to their HMWWVs that they must slim down to improve mileage or else risk getting punished?
Are you going to tell a cop that he must fit all of his duty gear, comms equipment, laptop, assault gear, and paperwork into a Civic so that he can get 35mpg? Currently fielded police vehicles are production equipment. It meets the standards of the year in which it was produced. So do the SUV's puchased by law enforcement and government agencies. It's not as if the government has a free ticket to be running 1940s technology in their 2007 vehicles. The added weight of the equipment required to perform the job will affect mileage, but that is not inherent to the vehicle.
Do you think all Americans are nut-jobs? Do you think all Americans agree on gun issues, or even care? Do you think anyone who supports gun ownership is therefore a nut-job? Yes, I believe this is exactly what most of the UK and similarly 'developed' countries believe. I also think that our own country is headed in this direction partially due to these outside opinions being introduced in our media.
Personal weapons (firearms, or anything else) are useful for defending against individual humans committing armed assault, but not so much against a standing government. Absolutely correct. Private citizens will not (ok, most of them) get into a firefight with a military unit in a Bradley. Weapons do, however, allow a private citizen to protect himself, his home, and his family from the common criminal or the violent terrorist. Perhaps the folks from the UK should look at their violent crime rates since your 1997 firearms ban. I mean really take a look. You are not the model of peace and harmony you THINK you are, and now your citizens will be tried and convicted if using even a hunting or sporting firearm in self defense.
I went to the University of Delaware while this stuff was being developed and sat in on a few presentations about it. It's pretty durable, and I believe its machine washable. Additionally, it actually makes the protective garment lighter. Say, for example, your current vest uses 6 sheets of kevlar for some arbitrary protection threshold. Using the STF, you can now reduce the number of sheets to 3 (an example) for the same protection. The weight is decresed, as kevlar is significantly heavier that the STF, it's cheaper to make since kevlar is expensive as hell, and it allows protection in areas not normally protected because at low rates of movement, such as human body movements, the stuff is fluid, and theres less sheets of kevlar in the way.
The most important aspect to this material, IMO, is the cost savings over traditional armor. Local and state level law enforcement may now be more inclined to purchase these garments, since most of those folks have to front the money to buy protection on their own.
I have in fact felt this recursive deja vu feeling before. Each time it happens, i usually tell myself I've seen this before, which I remember saying before, and so on, and so on. It goes away in a few seconds. And in most deja vu I experience, I can recall originally seeing that scenario in a dream. It gets really freaky when I experience the deja vu situation (ie: the present time) with people I hadn't yet met when I had that dream months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
ATTN. SPECOPS AND GECKO45 my secret username is CIDDECEP and I am your S2. My authorization code is Six Wun Quebec Oscar Fife. Your presence here is tactically dangerous and compromises our overall mission parameter. Cease and desist all activity on this board. Our "enemies" are deft at computer hacking and may trace you back to our primary locale. You have forced me to compromise my situation to protect your vulnerable flank. This issue will be addressed later.
While turning what was once a crime (marijuana use or possession) into a legal act will eliminate the instances of crime for that act (obviously, since it's no longer a crime), don't kid yourself into believing that anyone in the drug trade will suddenly pick up their newspapers and look for a legitimate job. Criminals do illegal things for profit because they are more profitable than the same amount of effort in a legal enterprise, and they feel the benefits outweigh the risks of getting caught. Legalizing drugs will not completely eliminate the illegal drug trade, nor will it put any significant dent in the violent crime rate among career criminals and the collateral damage their activities produce.
Old data on defense uses of firearms, from 1995: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html I haven't done the research recently but since concealed carry permits are available in more states now than 1995, I might be inclined to think the defensive use has gone up, or at least been maintained with population growth. The problem with data like this is, generally a victim that deters a crime with no witnesses might not even report the crime ever happened. You'd be surprised how many failed crimes don't get reported, regardless of the reason for the failure. Child deaths, 12 was off the top of my head. It ranges depends on how you view the data. Here's the stuff I've found for 2002/2003. If you count all firearm related deaths (which include intentional homocide, accidental police shootings, suicides, etc) they're only 2.73 times more likely to die from motor vehicle. If you only count accidental deaths, they are 50 times more likely to die by automobile. Sorry for spreading misinformation. http://www.childdeathreview.org/Nat'l%20Data%20Webpage%202002_files/US2002.pdf http://www.childdeathreview.org/2003%20Data/US2003.pdf I personally find it interesting how consistent the data is from year to year.
You also don't hear about the over 2 million crimes stopped every year from law abiding citizens using their right to self defense. Or that those children are 12 times more likely to die in an automobile accident. Just accept what the media and the government tells you and all will be well.
'Yuppie sports', that (aside from perhaps biking) grew directly out of survival and exploration skills? As opposed to stick-and-ball sports that serve no purpose except for recreation and exercise? I guarantee I've learned many more useful skills through camping, kayak fishing, climbing, and hiking than any sport involving a ball. REI might market to the urban wannabe adventurer, but the products they carry are actually quite good and the sports they promote are far more intriguing than any spectator sport.
If you'd like some reading that presents the facts about the history and context of the second amendment, I suggest A People Armed and Free: The Truth About the Second Amendment. The guy offers a disclaimer that he does believe the 2A supports an individual right. However, he presents both sides, with full text quotations, not the partial texts that are often offered from BOTH sides.
Your suggestion that you can not tell who or should not have a gun is somewhat well founded. It's true that you cannot pick out the guy with the flawless background (investigated via the FBI) that will someday use that firearm to commit a crime. The same can be said for the guy that will eventually drive his car into the front of a building and kill the mother buying a coffee at 7-11. You've probably heard this before, but I'll say it again. The outright ban of firearm ownership from law abiding citizens in an urban setting leaves you with a defenseless population against a defensive criminal front. Criminals get weapons. They don't go through an FBI investigation to get them.
Also, to suggest that an armed populace is not a deterrent to a tyrannical takeover, well, history says otherwise.
And even if you disagree with all of these things, I have one more question. Why are you so quick to take away what I enjoy so much? I shoot more in a month than most people do in their whole lives because it's FUN. Across all disciplines: trap, skeet, sporting clays, high powered rifle, rimfire target, steel plate pistol, practical pistol, bullseye pistol, cowboy action renactments, the list goes on.
The 'gun rights' folks are one of the few 'activists groups' that never wanted to CHANGE anything. We want to keep what we have. That has been the stance since the beginning. Why can't you just leave us alone? These laws are treating a symptom of the criminal leniency in this country, not the underlying problem. Let's kill unborn children, but let violent criminals skirt the death penalty. Let's 'reform' inmates so they can be let out and turn them into repeat offenders.
There's a reason the political left chose 'assault weapons' as their term of endearment for the target of choice in their continued infringement on civil liberties. I have asked a number of legislators in New Jersey why they feel the need to ban modern firearms. Their answer is that they have never heard of such a ban.
'Assault Firearms' are nothing more than MODERN firearms. The so called 'evil features' do not make it any more lethal. 'Why do you need a flashhider?' Because when I shoot at night matches, I don't like being blinded by the first shot. Ignore the fact that flashiders do nothing to hide the flash seen by the TARGET. That would be too rational.
'Why do you need a pistol grip?' Ever seen a good hunting rifle? They have thumbhole stocks. Remove some wood, and you're left with a pistol grip.
'Why do you need a bayonet lug?' Why the fuck not? How many people have been bayonetted by a dude with a firearm?
Come on people. Start thinking for yourself. Stop asking 'why do you need....?' Start asking 'Whats the problem with having...?'
I don't know that you can necessarily make the jump between having Linux run their intranet server and the political candidate being a steward to open source in government. I know the /. community as a whole think's Mr. Obama is the FSM incarnate, but come on now.
I have friends who work in the sector who get nervous when they fly to the US even though they are developers, its just madness that the US seems to thinks gambling is a massive evil, in a country that things gun ownership is a right.
I take offense to both of those comments. I don't see how the US as a whole thinks gambling is evil. Do you know how many casinos and racetracks are in this country? Take a look
Tell me again why gun ownership is not an individual right? What is inherently evil about gun ownership? Have you noticed that when the UK enacted strict gun control, the knife crime went way up in proportion? I'm sure that's just a coincidence though. There's no way that crime is crime, and that fundamental social issues are fundamental social issues, regardless of the tool involved to commit those crimes. I'm sure guns are the cause of violent crime. Yep, completely sure of it.
Diesels also carry a premium when you purchase the vehicle, apart from the higher cost of the fuel. From the Honda UK website, all the same trim level:
1.4 Civic: 14530GBP or 25,603 USD
1.8 Civic: 15180GBP or 26,748 USD
CTDi Civic: 16480GBP or 29,039 USD
This isn't exclusive to Honda. VW does the same thing. So when you're trying to see how much money you're saving with a diesel, see how long it takes to recoup that $3500.
I sort of figured it was a reference to something, but I can't believe I don't remember the Simpsons line. Thanks!
Aside from zinc plated screws for rust resistance and zinc phosphate coating for parkerizing, only the cheapest handguns ever used zinc for a major part of the firearm. Lorcin, Jennings, etc used an all-zinc frame to keep the costs down at the time since they are easy to cast and machine. A few 'saturday night special' revolver frames were also made from zinc. Zinc is a very poor metal to use for structural firearm parts, especially in something like a revolver where all the energy is transfer to the bullet and back to the cylinder/frame. The semi-autos are a slight bit better because some of the energy is transfered into the recoil spring and used to activate the slide. I have personally fired a Lorcin L22 and I felt that if I dropped it, the frame and slide would probably crack from the impact.
Why don't we send you over to the sandbox to ensure that our HMMWVs, Bradleys, Abrams, and every other military vehicle are compliant with your proposed mileage standards. Are you really that jaded to think that fuel economy should come at any cost? Are you going to tell the driver of an M1A2 that he just went from a 65mph top speed down to 15mph because we need our military vehicles to comply? Or tell the boys strapping armor plate to their HMWWVs that they must slim down to improve mileage or else risk getting punished? Are you going to tell a cop that he must fit all of his duty gear, comms equipment, laptop, assault gear, and paperwork into a Civic so that he can get 35mpg? Currently fielded police vehicles are production equipment. It meets the standards of the year in which it was produced. So do the SUV's puchased by law enforcement and government agencies. It's not as if the government has a free ticket to be running 1940s technology in their 2007 vehicles. The added weight of the equipment required to perform the job will affect mileage, but that is not inherent to the vehicle.
I'm sorry, but that is not progress.
Why does Toyota get all the coverage, when Saab just won an award for something very similiar? ahref=http://www.carpages.co.uk/saab/saab-alcokey- 28-12-06.asprel=url2html-2669http://www.carpages.c o.uk/saab/saab-alcokey-28-12-06.asp>
I went to the University of Delaware while this stuff was being developed and sat in on a few presentations about it. It's pretty durable, and I believe its machine washable. Additionally, it actually makes the protective garment lighter. Say, for example, your current vest uses 6 sheets of kevlar for some arbitrary protection threshold. Using the STF, you can now reduce the number of sheets to 3 (an example) for the same protection. The weight is decresed, as kevlar is significantly heavier that the STF, it's cheaper to make since kevlar is expensive as hell, and it allows protection in areas not normally protected because at low rates of movement, such as human body movements, the stuff is fluid, and theres less sheets of kevlar in the way. The most important aspect to this material, IMO, is the cost savings over traditional armor. Local and state level law enforcement may now be more inclined to purchase these garments, since most of those folks have to front the money to buy protection on their own.
I have in fact felt this recursive deja vu feeling before. Each time it happens, i usually tell myself I've seen this before, which I remember saying before, and so on, and so on. It goes away in a few seconds. And in most deja vu I experience, I can recall originally seeing that scenario in a dream. It gets really freaky when I experience the deja vu situation (ie: the present time) with people I hadn't yet met when I had that dream months ago.
Fortunately, there is Office for Mac! I believe Clippy is well versed in the art of suicide note writing.