Then "electrification" instead of electricity. Both my parents were raised in houses that didn't have electricity. It wasn't as long ago when the REA was changing lives. The REA started in 1935, because the US trailed the (industrialized) world in rural electrification. Yes, my parents are old and born in rural areas.
"According to the FBI, from 1980–2014, an average of 64 law enforcement officers have been feloniously killed per year. Those killed in accidents in the line of duty are not included in that number." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So over 1000 killed by cops, and under 100 cops killed per year. Looks like being a cop is safer than being a non-cop. A cop is 10-20x more likely to kill someone than be killed.
So you're saying if we get rid of all the guns, people who would have shot themselves to death would suddenly find the will to live and not try to end their lives by some other method?
I'm saying the statistics show something that could be explained by that. Though you are the only one here setting up the straw man of "why". If you didn't already have all the answers, you might learn something.
Yes gunshots are statistically more fatal, but your assertion that guns are instant death and stabbings are a minor annoyance is way off the mark.
I'm not saying guns are instant death, and stabbings are survivable. You are. I merely pointed to two highly publicized incidents at roughly the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. " Given it was endorsed by the NRA, it seems it was likely not too strong or safety.
From your link:
A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(34) as:
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device [...]
So providing a single zip tie with a gun purchase satisfies law. There are no standards or minimum requirements for locks. And no minimum standard for "deactivation", so a zip tie through the barrel (or other place where the gun can't operate with it in place) would satisfy the law.
Based on the law, a limp noodle tied through the barrel would be sufficient to satisfy the law, even if it is trivially deactivated.
But yes, the last time I bought a new firearm was in the '90s. And where I live now, getting a gun is easy, just not a right. So if I wanted one here, I'd have to pay the police to come out and inspect an approved gun safe before I'd be allowed a license to buy one. I've got a friend who has a gun license, but no guns, and he had to get a gun safe (inspected by the police) before he could get a gun license, which is required to shoot a gun (like at a range). He rents guns at the range, but still must have an approved and inspected gun safe at home, before he can get a license to shoot at a range. You can shoot at a range without one, but must be within arms reach of a "supervisor" at all times, and the supervisor can only supervise a single person at a time, so in practice, no regular shooter is without a license, even if they own no guns.
All brand new fire arm purchases come with a lock that makes it impossible to load the weapon without bypassing the lock.
It's been a few years since I bought a new firearm. When did that happen? I can't find any reference online for such a lock required with every purchase. Is that a state thing where you are?
Where I am, trigger locks are not considered "secure". It must be in an approved safe, or it's not secure.
The vast majority of guns in this country are not used in crimes.
The vast majority aren't used at all, for any reason.
The only one consistent effect of banning guns is fewer gun deaths. Not less violence. Not less crime. Not more crime. But fewer suicides by gun and fewer accidents. Sometimes "guns" is the problem.
These same people will be stabbing and bludgeoning other human beings if all guns were to somehow vaporize overnight.
Nope. The same week as a large shooting in the US (may have been Sandy Hook, not sure) there was a mass stabbing in China. The difference is there was a tiny chance of living if shot in the shooting, and a 100% survival in the school mass stabbing.
If we extrapolate from Kennesaw, then the answer is mandatory gun ownership.
Criminals given the choice of an armed victim or an unarmed victim will choose the unarmed victim. What's never been proven is that if every victim were armed, that the criminals wouldn't commit crimes. You are making an illogical leap.
So https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... isn't set for a specific yardage? You are confusing the multiple types of targeting shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is separate and unrelated from "target shooting" though combat shooting (often called "tactical shooting") uses targets.
A gun that doesn't shoot is much safer than one that does. Even the gun nuts that indicate millions of defensive uses a year indicate that the gun was not fired (in nearly all cases). The most effective gun, according to the gun nuts, is one that doesn't fire. And the safest gun, according to the anti-gun crowd is also one that doesn't fire. So based on today's reality, a gun that doesn't work is by far safest to have. You can waive it around, threaten people with it, but not get shot in the back by your 2 year old granddaughter.
Yes, but like the cold, you can take an asprin for a symptom, but not "cure" the disease. Gun control helps with the effect, even if it doesn't affect the cause. Also, those most against gun control work to increase mental health and economic problems.
How many deaths by federal agent were there in the past year? Compare that to countries that have been de-gunned, like England and Australia and let me know how de-gunning a population works in a modern industrial country.
I'll give you a hint. You are safer from the feds when guns are banned, than not.
It's perfectly legal for an infant to own a firearm. They just can't buy it from a FFL.
Also, how do you hold the parents responsible after the fact? Adam Lanza killed Mom. So how can you punish the parents as a form of deterrent, if the parents are killed?
And I never claimed Clarence Thomas was a rapist. You claimed Bill Clinton was a rapist. So any discussion about Clarence Thomas looks like a Chewbacca defense.
In politics, accusation is usually enough for liberals to go apeshit crazy, unless it is Clinton.
The only one apeshit crazy here, is you. "Clinton is a rapist because - Clarence Thomas"
Clarence Thomas is a good example. People didn't like him, for whatever reason. So a distraction and an excuse was used to reject him without valid reason. Whine, whine, whine when it's done to a Republican, but drool, cheer and encourage when it's done to a Democrat. You are the biggest hypocrite here. I condemned both equally. You obviously don't. You take sides and root for the home team, even when they cheat.
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
Yet when I ask someone to give one of the stories that's false, none appear. That is exactly how it goes when you are lying to vilify someone without evidence.
Since so many are so sure that she did something wrong, why can't any of these many stories be quoted that contradicts reality?
I've gotten into trouble for changing stories myself. What I did at the party as a teenager elicits a different response when I'm telling Mom, vs the kids at school. Both may be technically true, with no lies, but emphasis and omission to paint the impression I'm looking to give. That's human nature.
I voted for Obama that time.
I've voted in every presidential election since '92, and never once voted for a winner. I've voted for major party candidates of both sides, and often 3rd party candidates, but never a winner.
What straw man? The A/C asserted that she claimed there was no server. That was false. I called him on it. If it's "no issue" why are so many people here claiming she said it? Seems like too many people are taking provably false accusations as fact.
BTW - You left out her claims regarding classified information that have gone up in flames.
I didn't "leave out" anything. I don't feel the compulsive need to go off into non sequiturs whenever it looks like a Clinton hasn't been accused of enough today. The A/C claimed she claimed there was no server. I called him on it. You agreed with me that Hillary is innocent of that accusation. That's all. No need to turn into a raving mad lunatic.
She alleged that he raped her 20 years earlier, and didn't bring it up until he was famous enough that it would give her 15 minutes. Did she ever press charges or file a police report?
No. Wrong. None of her emails are on government servers because she never used government servers.
If everyone else was sending to her from government servers, or receiving on government servers, why are they not all on government servers? Oh, they are.
Billions? With a "B"? No, a few million.
Nah, the Clintons (including Hillary) have been under constant investigation since the late '80s or early '90s, when they first looked to be headed to the White House. The sum of all the investigations targeting the Clintons has wasted much more than just the last investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Then "electrification" instead of electricity. Both my parents were raised in houses that didn't have electricity. It wasn't as long ago when the REA was changing lives. The REA started in 1935, because the US trailed the (industrialized) world in rural electrification. Yes, my parents are old and born in rural areas.
Machines want this video banned!
Headlines destroyed by one simple Machine Learning trick.
"According to the FBI, from 1980–2014, an average of 64 law enforcement officers have been feloniously killed per year. Those killed in accidents in the line of duty are not included in that number." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So over 1000 killed by cops, and under 100 cops killed per year. Looks like being a cop is safer than being a non-cop. A cop is 10-20x more likely to kill someone than be killed.
Civilian lives matter.
So you're saying if we get rid of all the guns, people who would have shot themselves to death would suddenly find the will to live and not try to end their lives by some other method?
I'm saying the statistics show something that could be explained by that. Though you are the only one here setting up the straw man of "why". If you didn't already have all the answers, you might learn something.
Yes gunshots are statistically more fatal, but your assertion that guns are instant death and stabbings are a minor annoyance is way off the mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 23 stabbing victims, 0 fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 29 shooting victims, 27 fatalities. 30/28, if you count Mom.
I'm not saying guns are instant death, and stabbings are survivable. You are. I merely pointed to two highly publicized incidents at roughly the same time.
From your link:
A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(34) as: (A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device [...]
So providing a single zip tie with a gun purchase satisfies law. There are no standards or minimum requirements for locks. And no minimum standard for "deactivation", so a zip tie through the barrel (or other place where the gun can't operate with it in place) would satisfy the law.
Based on the law, a limp noodle tied through the barrel would be sufficient to satisfy the law, even if it is trivially deactivated.
But yes, the last time I bought a new firearm was in the '90s. And where I live now, getting a gun is easy, just not a right. So if I wanted one here, I'd have to pay the police to come out and inspect an approved gun safe before I'd be allowed a license to buy one. I've got a friend who has a gun license, but no guns, and he had to get a gun safe (inspected by the police) before he could get a gun license, which is required to shoot a gun (like at a range). He rents guns at the range, but still must have an approved and inspected gun safe at home, before he can get a license to shoot at a range. You can shoot at a range without one, but must be within arms reach of a "supervisor" at all times, and the supervisor can only supervise a single person at a time, so in practice, no regular shooter is without a license, even if they own no guns.
I've never seen a gun with a guard around the trigger, except in a shop where the owner didn't want people dry firing it.
All brand new fire arm purchases come with a lock that makes it impossible to load the weapon without bypassing the lock.
It's been a few years since I bought a new firearm. When did that happen? I can't find any reference online for such a lock required with every purchase. Is that a state thing where you are?
Where I am, trigger locks are not considered "secure". It must be in an approved safe, or it's not secure.
The vast majority of guns in this country are not used in crimes.
The vast majority aren't used at all, for any reason.
The only one consistent effect of banning guns is fewer gun deaths. Not less violence. Not less crime. Not more crime. But fewer suicides by gun and fewer accidents. Sometimes "guns" is the problem.
These same people will be stabbing and bludgeoning other human beings if all guns were to somehow vaporize overnight.
Nope. The same week as a large shooting in the US (may have been Sandy Hook, not sure) there was a mass stabbing in China. The difference is there was a tiny chance of living if shot in the shooting, and a 100% survival in the school mass stabbing.
If we extrapolate from Kennesaw, then the answer is mandatory gun ownership.
Criminals given the choice of an armed victim or an unarmed victim will choose the unarmed victim. What's never been proven is that if every victim were armed, that the criminals wouldn't commit crimes. You are making an illogical leap.
So https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... isn't set for a specific yardage? You are confusing the multiple types of targeting shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is separate and unrelated from "target shooting" though combat shooting (often called "tactical shooting") uses targets.
Do you know what you are talking about?
A gun that doesn't shoot is much safer than one that does. Even the gun nuts that indicate millions of defensive uses a year indicate that the gun was not fired (in nearly all cases). The most effective gun, according to the gun nuts, is one that doesn't fire. And the safest gun, according to the anti-gun crowd is also one that doesn't fire. So based on today's reality, a gun that doesn't work is by far safest to have. You can waive it around, threaten people with it, but not get shot in the back by your 2 year old granddaughter.
Yes, but like the cold, you can take an asprin for a symptom, but not "cure" the disease. Gun control helps with the effect, even if it doesn't affect the cause. Also, those most against gun control work to increase mental health and economic problems.
How many deaths by federal agent were there in the past year? Compare that to countries that have been de-gunned, like England and Australia and let me know how de-gunning a population works in a modern industrial country.
I'll give you a hint. You are safer from the feds when guns are banned, than not.
Yet caps on drain cleaner are more regulated than trigger guards on guns. Why?
Why do you fault the liberals for acting like the conservatives? Singling out one over the other makes you a partisan hack.
It's perfectly legal for an infant to own a firearm. They just can't buy it from a FFL.
Also, how do you hold the parents responsible after the fact? Adam Lanza killed Mom. So how can you punish the parents as a form of deterrent, if the parents are killed?
I'm not defending anything, nor is anything I do or say going to stop or enable any of it.
You are simply lying to distract from your false accusations.
Innocent until accused lots. Is that how it should work?
In politics, accusation is usually enough for liberals to go apeshit crazy, unless it is Clinton.
The only one apeshit crazy here, is you. "Clinton is a rapist because - Clarence Thomas"
Clarence Thomas is a good example. People didn't like him, for whatever reason. So a distraction and an excuse was used to reject him without valid reason. Whine, whine, whine when it's done to a Republican, but drool, cheer and encourage when it's done to a Democrat. You are the biggest hypocrite here. I condemned both equally. You obviously don't. You take sides and root for the home team, even when they cheat.
Rice had a personal account with no oversight, and the only thing to prove it had no improper email is her word.
They've changed the story every time they've told us about this server. That's not how it goes when you're being honest.
Yet when I ask someone to give one of the stories that's false, none appear. That is exactly how it goes when you are lying to vilify someone without evidence.
Since so many are so sure that she did something wrong, why can't any of these many stories be quoted that contradicts reality?
I've gotten into trouble for changing stories myself. What I did at the party as a teenager elicits a different response when I'm telling Mom, vs the kids at school. Both may be technically true, with no lies, but emphasis and omission to paint the impression I'm looking to give. That's human nature.
I voted for Obama that time.
I've voted in every presidential election since '92, and never once voted for a winner. I've voted for major party candidates of both sides, and often 3rd party candidates, but never a winner.
Well done, you've demolished a straw man.
What straw man? The A/C asserted that she claimed there was no server. That was false. I called him on it. If it's "no issue" why are so many people here claiming she said it? Seems like too many people are taking provably false accusations as fact.
BTW - You left out her claims regarding classified information that have gone up in flames.
I didn't "leave out" anything. I don't feel the compulsive need to go off into non sequiturs whenever it looks like a Clinton hasn't been accused of enough today. The A/C claimed she claimed there was no server. I called him on it. You agreed with me that Hillary is innocent of that accusation. That's all. No need to turn into a raving mad lunatic.
She alleged that he raped her 20 years earlier, and didn't bring it up until he was famous enough that it would give her 15 minutes. Did she ever press charges or file a police report?
Ah, so the answer to Why? is "The other guy did it first, and you didn't complain as loudly for the one I like as the one I don't like."
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I have spoken about both equally. It takes a lying partisan hack to assert otherwise.
No. Wrong. None of her emails are on government servers because she never used government servers.
If everyone else was sending to her from government servers, or receiving on government servers, why are they not all on government servers? Oh, they are.
Billions? With a "B"? No, a few million.
Nah, the Clintons (including Hillary) have been under constant investigation since the late '80s or early '90s, when they first looked to be headed to the White House. The sum of all the investigations targeting the Clintons has wasted much more than just the last investigation.