And there is a good deal of evidence that the rate of firearms being used for self defense are significantly under-reported as well. So what?
The "under-reported" ones are brandishing asserted to stop a crime in progress or potential crime. For all those "under-reported" cases, the gun is not fired (if it's fired, it's reported), so whether it works or not is immaterial to the situation. The successful "under-reported" cases could be with toy guns, for all the good the gun was. So using those as statistics to demand a more reliable gun that will shoot, for situations where you didn't want to shoot, seems very illogical.
What is clear is that there is no statistical correlation (let alone provable causative link) between any weapons prohibition and violent crime reduction.
How about something different, a reduction in weapons and a violent crime reduction? We've never actually tried reducing the number of guns in the US, just turning previously law-abiding citizens into criminals. There's a difference, but neither side wants to look at what happens with actual reductions in guns, because both are afraid of what the statistics might show. Why is that?
A number of drop safeties have been known to "fail" in a manner that could prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled, and drop safeties are required in some jurisdictions.
Which regulation mandates a feature that makes firearms less reliable?
Fuck you. You are questioning me in a confrontational manner, but
LCI and mag disconnects? I acknowledge those, and think they are also bad law.
You agree with me and give examples.
You are obviously interested in a fight, not a discussion.
You dismissed it, but I linked to sites that show it to be common. You assert the opposite, but I haven't seen you post any cites. I did. You didn't. That's the sign that you know you are wrong, but like to argue.
Zimmerman followed Martin. And I've been told here, more than once, that the guy on the ground getting beat will be unlikely to pull a gun out in self defense. But that's what Zimmerman did. While being beat down by the big evil black guy, Martin reached for the gun first, but Zimmerman was faster to pull his gun - probably in a wild-west imagined move.
I can't understand how someone could think that the head of the neighborhood watch, who "patrols" routinely, would be "lost" one block from home in a gated community with only 3 streets. That was his story. He followed Martin to the dead-end alley only coincidentally looking for a street sign because the head of the neighborhood watch was lost, one street from his house. He keeps his gun in his car, not on his person, and deliberately took it with him to go look for a street sign, following the same path he just saw the "dangerous" stranger take.
I don't claim to know what actually happened. But I do see the large number of inconsistencies in the events reported by the survivor.
A smaller country, where having the police nearby isn't cost prohibitive.
Costs scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... The list doesn't look to have the scaling issues you assert. Perhaps if you counted per-state, you'd have a better idea.
I read that cops are more likely to be killed by their own guns than another's. But I can't seem to find the statistics right now. www.ncjrs.gov is not responding.
Why would you want legislation that requires firearms to be less reliable?
There are already regulations to that effect. Your complaint on the "new" without even acknowledging the "old" indicates an anti-tech or anti-new bias, not a logical analysis of the situation.
That's better than the gun itself. You'll get a bad bullet in the "store for years between use, and never clean/oil it or rotate ammo" conditions given.
The watched-based one seems to get close to there, but only when tested in a controlled environment. Though the pro-gun groups seem to indicate that 90% of "defensive gun use" is brandishing, because brandishing isn't counted by the feds for defensive use, so it's a means of pushing the agenda in a way the government can't contradict or address.
If the 90% number is true, the gun doesn't ever have to work to work 90% of the time.
In 2004, it killed someone (an "innocent" bystander even). It's not sufficiently less-lethal to be non-lethal, like tasers are still considered in the US (but not necessarily elsewhere).
Then the problem is that everyone bakes in "hope" to every stock. When earning expectations are announced, flat earnings are "rewarded" with a price drop. When results are released, flat earnings are "rewarded" with a price drop. 10% growth is expected, or people holding under-performing stocks sell them for stocks making the magic number, causing irrational drops in price for "good performers" and rises in poor performers.
Perhaps it's you that needs to understand what you are talking about. The quantitative traders are greatly outnumbered.
Common Law sucks. It means that the written law doesn't exist. The law, interpreted by people we know nothing about, with lots of adjusted rules.
A better system is to 100% overturn every law that's adjusted by a court, and require the legislatures re-write the laws to comply, so that a single reading of the written published law is all that one would need to know to the law.
At the time the Constitution was written, the "militia" was better armed than the government. Most artillery was private owned, and there was no standing army. The first standing army in a non-war time was when Eisenhower complained about the Military Industrial Complex, while creating it. His farewell address wasn't a warning. It was an apology, from a weak man who knew he was doing evil, but was too weak to stop it.
Tasers were initially sold as disabling weapons. But now they are considered lethal in many countries. They kill enough that they are considered lethal. I'm not sure about their legal status in the US. Though the casual nature I see them used makes them seem to be "designed to disable".
A shield not too different
from a riot shield should be quickly available, doors of police vehicles should
have layers added to protect from ballistic small arms fire.
I think you watch too many TV shows. Aside from a few (very very rare) situations, like the North Hollywood shootout in '97, cops aren't anywhere near their cars when the shooting starts. They are almost always inside or approaching an unfamiliar structure.
Body armor is nice but less effective in many
situations.
Body armor is all they get. And it works fine, but it has a problem with being "effective" as that is heavy and inconvenient.
"Blame" isn't punishment. It's a re-valuation of values of variables. Sure, the lorry driver's life is now 1/10th what it was before, but that doesn't change the options that leave one survivable.If you are on a mountain cliff and faced with one lorry passing another, a cliff face that would push you into the path of one of the lorrys or certain death trying to drive off the cliff, the blame assigned to the lorry driver by your car will have no impact on your situation.
So please explain how your example is in the least bit relevant. Nobody said anything about the "blame" being punative - if a jaywalker steps in front of you, you can safely swerve around him, but your car chooses to run him over, then back over him again for good measure because the "blame" routine determined he was at-fault. No, "blame" never says you *should* drive into him. It just resets values within the ethical evaluation to come to a different "optimal" solution.
You are arguing a point nobody made before you. My question is, do you know it to be a non sequitur, and were just bored? Or did you actually think it relevant?
Do you know where fracking is done, and what frackers pump down? You don't frack with seawater. Frackers generally use drinking water (I'm counting rivers and streams that would be used as drinking water downstream) as the base for their fracking solutions.
Why are you trying to correct someone when you obviously don't understand the thread?
When I first started paying taxes and living on my own, I paid 54% of my gross income in taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. I'm including fees that pretend to be taxes but which are imposed by the phone company (universal service fee, etc).
When I crossed the top 10% wage-earner threshold, I did the "includ everything" exercise. I paid less than 10% in federal income tax, and less than 20% in total taxes.
The tax rates in the US are confusing, inconsistent, and unfair. I think that the rates aren't bad. They should just eliminate *all* deductions, and tax all income as earned is now. That'd be much more fair and efficient. It's too confusing to have all the different types of taxes spread and hidden around.
That's how it began with me, then I decided to try "suggesting" channels to change to. Pick some imagry and think about it while falling asleep (something simple, but specific, like walking through a corn field), and you may be able to change channels to your pre-suggested dream. After getting good at that, my full lucidity came when I'd change channels to the same dream, but with a change. Eventually, I could make the change within the dream without changing channels.
But with me, the more I controlled the dreams, the lighter of a sleeper I became. And eventually it got harder to get to sleep or go back to sleep after. And no, it really isn't that great of a thing. It's not like a superpower.
It's illegal to stop blacks from voting because they are black. But it's "legal" to convict a black person for a felony when a white person would have been given a warning, and then take away their vote for the rest of their lives.
And people wonder why the conviction rate is so much higher for a black committing the same crime as a white person.
Buy AAPL 15 years ago. Buy GOOG at IPO. That's what people are chasing. The financials for Facebook have always been weak. But it started strong, until it dropped as the numbers didn't ever improve.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is a good deal of evidence that the rate of firearms being used for self defense are significantly under-reported as well. So what?
The "under-reported" ones are brandishing asserted to stop a crime in progress or potential crime. For all those "under-reported" cases, the gun is not fired (if it's fired, it's reported), so whether it works or not is immaterial to the situation. The successful "under-reported" cases could be with toy guns, for all the good the gun was. So using those as statistics to demand a more reliable gun that will shoot, for situations where you didn't want to shoot, seems very illogical.
What is clear is that there is no statistical correlation (let alone provable causative link) between any weapons prohibition and violent crime reduction.
How about something different, a reduction in weapons and a violent crime reduction? We've never actually tried reducing the number of guns in the US, just turning previously law-abiding citizens into criminals. There's a difference, but neither side wants to look at what happens with actual reductions in guns, because both are afraid of what the statistics might show. Why is that?
Weird that we carried guns at all when I was in the Marine Corps then, huh? The enemy might have taken it away from me!
So you are saying that nobody has ever used the weapons of the enemy against them? I guess it is true. Marines are dumb.
Which regulation mandates a feature that makes firearms less reliable?
Fuck you. You are questioning me in a confrontational manner, but
LCI and mag disconnects? I acknowledge those, and think they are also bad law.
You agree with me and give examples.
You are obviously interested in a fight, not a discussion.
You dismissed it, but I linked to sites that show it to be common. You assert the opposite, but I haven't seen you post any cites. I did. You didn't. That's the sign that you know you are wrong, but like to argue.
Zimmerman followed Martin. And I've been told here, more than once, that the guy on the ground getting beat will be unlikely to pull a gun out in self defense. But that's what Zimmerman did. While being beat down by the big evil black guy, Martin reached for the gun first, but Zimmerman was faster to pull his gun - probably in a wild-west imagined move.
I can't understand how someone could think that the head of the neighborhood watch, who "patrols" routinely, would be "lost" one block from home in a gated community with only 3 streets. That was his story. He followed Martin to the dead-end alley only coincidentally looking for a street sign because the head of the neighborhood watch was lost, one street from his house. He keeps his gun in his car, not on his person, and deliberately took it with him to go look for a street sign, following the same path he just saw the "dangerous" stranger take.
I don't claim to know what actually happened. But I do see the large number of inconsistencies in the events reported by the survivor.
A smaller country, where having the police nearby isn't cost prohibitive.
Costs scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... The list doesn't look to have the scaling issues you assert. Perhaps if you counted per-state, you'd have a better idea.
http://www.policeone.com/close...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic.aspx?Topicid=84
I read that cops are more likely to be killed by their own guns than another's. But I can't seem to find the statistics right now. www.ncjrs.gov is not responding.
Why would you want legislation that requires firearms to be less reliable?
There are already regulations to that effect. Your complaint on the "new" without even acknowledging the "old" indicates an anti-tech or anti-new bias, not a logical analysis of the situation.
That's better than the gun itself. You'll get a bad bullet in the "store for years between use, and never clean/oil it or rotate ammo" conditions given.
This is pretty much the epitome of an "apples vs oranges" comparison.
Yes, the epitome of "no true Scotsman".
The watched-based one seems to get close to there, but only when tested in a controlled environment. Though the pro-gun groups seem to indicate that 90% of "defensive gun use" is brandishing, because brandishing isn't counted by the feds for defensive use, so it's a means of pushing the agenda in a way the government can't contradict or address.
If the 90% number is true, the gun doesn't ever have to work to work 90% of the time.
But NO less-lethal device was EVER designed to replace your revolver.
The taser was designed to replace the sidearm. Whether it worked is an unrelated question, but you stated "designed" and I think that's incorrect.
In 2004, it killed someone (an "innocent" bystander even). It's not sufficiently less-lethal to be non-lethal, like tasers are still considered in the US (but not necessarily elsewhere).
But was it pointed at a kid holding a flashlight, or an adult holding a gun?
Then the problem is that everyone bakes in "hope" to every stock. When earning expectations are announced, flat earnings are "rewarded" with a price drop. When results are released, flat earnings are "rewarded" with a price drop. 10% growth is expected, or people holding under-performing stocks sell them for stocks making the magic number, causing irrational drops in price for "good performers" and rises in poor performers.
Perhaps it's you that needs to understand what you are talking about. The quantitative traders are greatly outnumbered.
Common Law sucks. It means that the written law doesn't exist. The law, interpreted by people we know nothing about, with lots of adjusted rules.
A better system is to 100% overturn every law that's adjusted by a court, and require the legislatures re-write the laws to comply, so that a single reading of the written published law is all that one would need to know to the law.
At the time the Constitution was written, the "militia" was better armed than the government. Most artillery was private owned, and there was no standing army. The first standing army in a non-war time was when Eisenhower complained about the Military Industrial Complex, while creating it. His farewell address wasn't a warning. It was an apology, from a weak man who knew he was doing evil, but was too weak to stop it.
No weapon is designed to disable today.....
Tasers were initially sold as disabling weapons. But now they are considered lethal in many countries. They kill enough that they are considered lethal. I'm not sure about their legal status in the US. Though the casual nature I see them used makes them seem to be "designed to disable".
A shield not too different from a riot shield should be quickly available, doors of police vehicles should have layers added to protect from ballistic small arms fire.
I think you watch too many TV shows. Aside from a few (very very rare) situations, like the North Hollywood shootout in '97, cops aren't anywhere near their cars when the shooting starts. They are almost always inside or approaching an unfamiliar structure.
Body armor is nice but less effective in many situations.
Body armor is all they get. And it works fine, but it has a problem with being "effective" as that is heavy and inconvenient.
"Blame" isn't punishment. It's a re-valuation of values of variables. Sure, the lorry driver's life is now 1/10th what it was before, but that doesn't change the options that leave one survivable.If you are on a mountain cliff and faced with one lorry passing another, a cliff face that would push you into the path of one of the lorrys or certain death trying to drive off the cliff, the blame assigned to the lorry driver by your car will have no impact on your situation.
So please explain how your example is in the least bit relevant. Nobody said anything about the "blame" being punative - if a jaywalker steps in front of you, you can safely swerve around him, but your car chooses to run him over, then back over him again for good measure because the "blame" routine determined he was at-fault. No, "blame" never says you *should* drive into him. It just resets values within the ethical evaluation to come to a different "optimal" solution.
You are arguing a point nobody made before you. My question is, do you know it to be a non sequitur, and were just bored? Or did you actually think it relevant?
Do you know where fracking is done, and what frackers pump down? You don't frack with seawater. Frackers generally use drinking water (I'm counting rivers and streams that would be used as drinking water downstream) as the base for their fracking solutions.
Why are you trying to correct someone when you obviously don't understand the thread?
When I first started paying taxes and living on my own, I paid 54% of my gross income in taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. I'm including fees that pretend to be taxes but which are imposed by the phone company (universal service fee, etc).
When I crossed the top 10% wage-earner threshold, I did the "includ everything" exercise. I paid less than 10% in federal income tax, and less than 20% in total taxes.
The tax rates in the US are confusing, inconsistent, and unfair. I think that the rates aren't bad. They should just eliminate *all* deductions, and tax all income as earned is now. That'd be much more fair and efficient. It's too confusing to have all the different types of taxes spread and hidden around.
That's how it began with me, then I decided to try "suggesting" channels to change to. Pick some imagry and think about it while falling asleep (something simple, but specific, like walking through a corn field), and you may be able to change channels to your pre-suggested dream. After getting good at that, my full lucidity came when I'd change channels to the same dream, but with a change. Eventually, I could make the change within the dream without changing channels.
But with me, the more I controlled the dreams, the lighter of a sleeper I became. And eventually it got harder to get to sleep or go back to sleep after. And no, it really isn't that great of a thing. It's not like a superpower.
It's illegal to stop blacks from voting because they are black. But it's "legal" to convict a black person for a felony when a white person would have been given a warning, and then take away their vote for the rest of their lives.
And people wonder why the conviction rate is so much higher for a black committing the same crime as a white person.
It's simpler than all that. Why do people root for the Cowboys over the Redskins? It's tribal, not rational or logical.
The FBI would indicate otherwise.
Then cite that. Go start reading, start with The Mismeasure of Man.
Buy AAPL 15 years ago. Buy GOOG at IPO. That's what people are chasing. The financials for Facebook have always been weak. But it started strong, until it dropped as the numbers didn't ever improve.