From what little information I can find about Bully, it's the exact opposite of what he says it is --- it's all about standing up to the bullies and defeating them.
And what Jack said...
I'm also going to bring up Bully, which is a revenge fantasy and a murder simulator. The setting is Columbine.
The two kids from Columbine weren't bullies. They were lashing out at the people who had picked on them. I don't think he's completely accurate, but he's certainly not the exact opposite.
Where I currently work, we have several job openings.
They're not open jobs because no one who already works here wants to do them.
They're open jobs because they are either skillsets that we don't have, or the people who do have them don't have enough hours in a day to do as much as we need done.
My choice of 'federal agent' was dictated largely by the post I replied to, who complained about the use of federal agents in the article. My point isn't that they are the highest risk group, but they are (probably) a higher risk group than a random population sample.
Depends on what you mean by 'decent chance'. I didn't mean that it's necessarily likely, just that it is probably a much larger chance than a randomly selected person. 1 in 1000 is a much larger chance than say 1 in 1000000 (numbers made up on the spot).
TFA did, and the post to which I replied made reference to the article.
It's even a problem for non-undercover agents (though less severe), as they're more likely to have someone they've busted in the past (or someone who knows a person they've busted) with a grudge than somebody who's not in law enforcement.
The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.
That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.
It's not the printer so much as the quality of the label stock. But most of the ones I've seen only get marred if they're exposed to open flame. Since the stock we have to deal with is often not known whether or not it's thermal, we sometimes find a smoker and borrow their lighter to test it.
Merry Xmas (or whatever, but I'm betting on Xmas).
It might seem cruel, but I don't believe that we can end all tragedy. As I firmly believe that the majority of people are good, I feel that the best method to prevent these tragedies is a strategy of equal force. Thus, if everybody can project more or less equal amounts of force, the sheer number of 'good guys' will handily suppress the number of 'bad guys'. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons. I can build a machine gun for under $100 parts, failing that, knives and clubs have been used extensivly, and in some ways are worse than guns as they aren't noisy. I follow the idea that if one or two people had had a weapon on the subway, that he could have been stopped. Hopefully before he killed anybody, but almost certainly before killing six. He even reloaded twice before finally being taken down by other passangers when he attempted to reload a third time.
This might be a spot where we just have to agree to disagree. I think that what you say certainly applies in some places, but I think that much like two places like (semi-random choices, one big and one small) NYC and Omaha probably have different zoning laws maybe different emissions standards and building codes, all of which make sense to have different in those places, so too should they have different gun control laws. If a majority of law abiding citizens are disinclined towards owning firearms to begin with, then it makes more sense to restrict them. In a place where this is not true, it makes less sense.
She can type (hunt & peck, but that's enough). She even gets the puncuation. She likes to put in www.nickjr.com, though it's in her favorites now so she doesn't type it anymore. The word recognition I've seen in action, it's occaisionally very confusing when she tries to use a word that she's never heard but has only seen written. The usage is usually correct, but the pronunciation can be a little funky.
I'm considering it for occaisional communications, not 100%. There are times when I have absolutely no idea what she has or hasn't understood. My thoughts on the matter are that if she CAN effectively communicate via written means, then it might be an excellent outlet for her to express herself sometimes. As near as I can tell, she has NO means of clearly communicating many ideas to people.
I have a 5 year old who currently is diagnosed as PDD-NOS, which will probably later be changed to either Asperger's or something in the same territory. I've been considering setting her up with an email account to try communicating with her (she's been able to read for almost 2 years now), as face-to-face conversation can be so difficult sometimes.
As someone who's been there, would you recommend this approach?
Actually, criminal usage of military firearms is negligble in the USA as well, even if you include 'military pattern' copycats.
I was just being needlessly pedantic. I meant that I didn't think people were shot with anything other than handguns with any kind of frequency outside of actual military engagements. I wasn't referring to criminal firearm deaths there.
Hmm... Permits. Do you feel that they should be 'shall issue', in that the approving official must issue a permit unless a disabling condition is found, or should they be discretionary, as in the approving official can effectivly say 'no' without needing a real reason?
Somewhere in the middle I think. I would accept a reasonable amount of discretion, but there should be a speedy challenge process where the burden of proof is on the party denying issuance.
The specifics of usage and training I don't think I'm qualified to speak towards. I'm aware of some of the issues (like loading/unloading) from having read about them, but without firsthand experience I would either need to do much more research or leave the specifics to others. I'd leave it at "enough training so that if a bullet is fired, you probably meant for it to be fired at that time and in that direction.", and maybe a few other sensible safety tips.
I prefer permits to waiting periods, as it allows for some advance planning with less inconvenience, especially for someone who plans on owning several guns (collector or whatever), since permit is needed only once while a waiting period applies every time. If waiting periods are the only alternative, then restraining order-type exceptions are also reasonable (even if it's all permit based), though they should act as a temporary permit only. Having an emergency should not exonerate you from needing to get proper training, though it may allow it to be delayed.
I have one for CCW, which also exempts me from the NICS check. It involved a bit of training, a test(written and course of fire), and a deeper background check. I think it's silly to ban my carrying from various places. I've already shown myself to be a good guy. I'm not going to be shooting up a school, but I have a better chance of stopping one if I have my firearm with me while there.
This one's a bit tough. Colin Ferguson carried a handgun onto an LIRR train and shot 7 (citing from memory, but the number isn't that important) passengers with no provocation. He bought the gun in California, which had among other things a 7 day waiting period at the time. I don't remember anymore what kind of background checks that he went through, but even then you can't really prove that you're a good guy.
But this moves towards what I said earlier about different regulations working better in different places. That happened in lower NY, where inclination towards gun ownership is relatively low. In such a place, you don't want ANYONE outside of maybe a paid security guard going into some places (like a school) armed. But if the reverse is true, and in a crowd of say 100 people you can expect at least a few of them to be armed, then it's no big deal*, as one nut starts shooting and five citizens gun him down in self defense.
*no big deal in the sense that one armed madman can't hold the crowd hostage. It's always a big deal if a loon starts shooting at people.
My other comment should have read "becomes tyranical" but it looks like you knew what I meant.
Let's start that these are all specific to handguns. Non military human firearm deaths from other types of guns are pretty much negligble from what I understand. Drive by shootings with a rifle are kind of impractical.
Reasonable would start with background checks, as well as penalties for attempting to purchase a firearm if you don't qualify (convincted violent criminal etc), though first time should just get a "if you do that again you're in trouble" warning.
Permits are also reasonable, so long as the criteria involve usage and training. Failing permits, waiting periods seem fair, though permits are probably better for all involved, as it allows gun shows to operate without any real interruption, but it still prevents someone from running out and grabbing a gun in the heat of a moment. If you bother to get a permit, you'll probably already have a gun when the heat of the moment comes around.
I'm iffy on concealment, perhaps with a permit.
On the flip side, my major objection to gun control is with what I perceive to be the intent of the 2nd amendment, which to me means "If the government because tyrannical, the people need the means to conduct a revolution."
The KKK example is kind of what I had in mind with my theorem. I still don't know about my premise, which is part of why I'd like to see a genuinely objective study.
BTW, I was once paired up in a class and we all had to take opposite sides of controversial issues. I took the pro gun control stance, and flatten the guy (but pretty much entirely because I was smarter than him, as I think I could have flattened him if we reversed it too). Interestingly enough, doing that research gave me some of my first exposure to reasonable sounding anti gun control arguments. "Cold dead hand" makes a great soundbite but does not make one sound reasonable.
I don't know what percentage of firearm deaths/injuries are from lack of gun safety, but I would guess they are quite small. I can't imagine that the gun control lobby would overlook the easy arguments that could be made if it were common.
As to 'effective' gun control, I meant more that legislation has the potential to be effective, but is dependent more on the implementation than on the phrasing of the laws themselves. Let's play the hypothetical game for a minute:
Theorem: When corruption is high, gun control laws increase crime.
This is basically where I was headed with that. I don't *know* that they are necessarily effective, but it's a gut instinct that they can be, but I reiterate that I don't believe a single solution is right for every municipality. As NYC has moved into the top 10 safest big cities in the US recently, it suggests that at a minimum gun control laws are not raising crime rates, and that possibily gun control laws can be an asset to an honest, competent police force.
I would think zip code designation/creation would fall under the responsibilities of the Postal Service, or some associated federal agency, and not be purely up to local officials. I'll have to try and research that one.
In NY, it's not uncommon for a single town/city to have multiple zip codes. In downtown Manhattan, walking around during a lunch break can cross you over a few different zip codes.
My own belief is that gun control *can* be effective, but is neither sufficient nor necessary. Since the factors can vary very widely, that's why I'd like to see the timelines. Not just for DC, but for a variety of places, and not just the year before and the year after, but a 10 year span with the enactment date as the center.
I would expect that if enough data is available, it would show any of the following:
Possibility 1: Short term drop/increase, followed by steady reversal over time Possibility 2: Statisticly negligble differences Possibility 3: Noticeable sustained increase or decrease in rates
Further, I would not be surprised if categorization of the areas studied showed different rates for different regions, such as more success in high poverty areas vs less success in low poverty areas or something like that.
I'd love to see a genuinely objective study on it.
You conveniently mention that Vermont and Alaksa don't require any permits, then only list Vermont's violent crime rates. Let's throw in Alaska's:
Alaska: 566.9 per 100,000 (year 2000)
and just for fun, Texas, where at least by reputation gun ownership is high:
Texas: 545.1
Those don't look to be very different from New York's.
Just looking at the data on the surface, there are a few possible conclusions:
1) Gun Control laws are irrelevant to crime rates (not helpful, but not necessarily detrimental).
2) Gun Control laws have different levels of effectiveness in different areas. What works in one place may be a total failure somewhere else.
I'm too lazy to do the research now, but what I'd like to see is a timeline showing violent crime rates in NY and other places before and after enactment of various gun control laws. If in DC rates dropped from 3200 to 1500 after handguns were banned then I'd say it's quite effective there. If it went from 700 to 1500 then I'd say just the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't take that to literally mean that the setting is the Columbine school, but rather the events that happened there.
What you said...
From what little information I can find about Bully, it's the exact opposite of what he says it is --- it's all about standing up to the bullies and defeating them.
And what Jack said...
I'm also going to bring up Bully, which is a revenge fantasy and a murder simulator. The setting is Columbine.
The two kids from Columbine weren't bullies. They were lashing out at the people who had picked on them. I don't think he's completely accurate, but he's certainly not the exact opposite.
That probably depends more on training and background than anything else.
I can stay away from C or Bourne/Korn shell scripting for a while and then come back to them without checking a reference too.
This however:
If your style of coding is organized, you have nothing to worry about when trying to decipher what you wrote a few years ago.
describes more of the problem than anything else.
Where I currently work, we have several job openings.
They're not open jobs because no one who already works here wants to do them.
They're open jobs because they are either skillsets that we don't have, or the people who do have them don't have enough hours in a day to do as much as we need done.
My choice of 'federal agent' was dictated largely by the post I replied to, who complained about the use of federal agents in the article. My point isn't that they are the highest risk group, but they are (probably) a higher risk group than a random population sample.
Depends on what you mean by 'decent chance'. I didn't mean that it's necessarily likely, just that it is probably a much larger chance than a randomly selected person. 1 in 1000 is a much larger chance than say 1 in 1000000 (numbers made up on the spot).
TFA did, and the post to which I replied made reference to the article.
It's even a problem for non-undercover agents (though less severe), as they're more likely to have someone they've busted in the past (or someone who knows a person they've busted) with a grudge than somebody who's not in law enforcement.
The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.
That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.
... to post two comments too.
I just wanted...
What applications are there for this question?
It's not the printer so much as the quality of the label stock. But most of the ones I've seen only get marred if they're exposed to open flame. Since the stock we have to deal with is often not known whether or not it's thermal, we sometimes find a smoker and borrow their lighter to test it.
Merry Xmas (or whatever, but I'm betting on Xmas).
It might seem cruel, but I don't believe that we can end all tragedy. As I firmly believe that the majority of people are good, I feel that the best method to prevent these tragedies is a strategy of equal force. Thus, if everybody can project more or less equal amounts of force, the sheer number of 'good guys' will handily suppress the number of 'bad guys'. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons. I can build a machine gun for under $100 parts, failing that, knives and clubs have been used extensivly, and in some ways are worse than guns as they aren't noisy. I follow the idea that if one or two people had had a weapon on the subway, that he could have been stopped. Hopefully before he killed anybody, but almost certainly before killing six. He even reloaded twice before finally being taken down by other passangers when he attempted to reload a third time.
This might be a spot where we just have to agree to disagree. I think that what you say certainly applies in some places, but I think that much like two places like (semi-random choices, one big and one small) NYC and Omaha probably have different zoning laws maybe different emissions standards and building codes, all of which make sense to have different in those places, so too should they have different gun control laws. If a majority of law abiding citizens are disinclined towards owning firearms to begin with, then it makes more sense to restrict them. In a place where this is not true, it makes less sense.
She can type (hunt & peck, but that's enough). She even gets the puncuation. She likes to put in www.nickjr.com, though it's in her favorites now so she doesn't type it anymore. The word recognition I've seen in action, it's occaisionally very confusing when she tries to use a word that she's never heard but has only seen written. The usage is usually correct, but the pronunciation can be a little funky.
Thanks for the info. I may just try this.
I'm considering it for occaisional communications, not 100%. There are times when I have absolutely no idea what she has or hasn't understood. My thoughts on the matter are that if she CAN effectively communicate via written means, then it might be an excellent outlet for her to express herself sometimes. As near as I can tell, she has NO means of clearly communicating many ideas to people.
I have a 5 year old who currently is diagnosed as PDD-NOS, which will probably later be changed to either Asperger's or something in the same territory. I've been considering setting her up with an email account to try communicating with her (she's been able to read for almost 2 years now), as face-to-face conversation can be so difficult sometimes.
As someone who's been there, would you recommend this approach?
Actually, criminal usage of military firearms is negligble in the USA as well, even if you include 'military pattern' copycats.
I was just being needlessly pedantic. I meant that I didn't think people were shot with anything other than handguns with any kind of frequency outside of actual military engagements. I wasn't referring to criminal firearm deaths there.
Hmm... Permits. Do you feel that they should be 'shall issue', in that the approving official must issue a permit unless a disabling condition is found, or should they be discretionary, as in the approving official can effectivly say 'no' without needing a real reason?
Somewhere in the middle I think. I would accept a reasonable amount of discretion, but there should be a speedy challenge process where the burden of proof is on the party denying issuance.
The specifics of usage and training I don't think I'm qualified to speak towards. I'm aware of some of the issues (like loading/unloading) from having read about them, but without firsthand experience I would either need to do much more research or leave the specifics to others. I'd leave it at "enough training so that if a bullet is fired, you probably meant for it to be fired at that time and in that direction.", and maybe a few other sensible safety tips.
I prefer permits to waiting periods, as it allows for some advance planning with less inconvenience, especially for someone who plans on owning several guns (collector or whatever), since permit is needed only once while a waiting period applies every time. If waiting periods are the only alternative, then restraining order-type exceptions are also reasonable (even if it's all permit based), though they should act as a temporary permit only. Having an emergency should not exonerate you from needing to get proper training, though it may allow it to be delayed.
I have one for CCW, which also exempts me from the NICS check. It involved a bit of training, a test(written and course of fire), and a deeper background check. I think it's silly to ban my carrying from various places. I've already shown myself to be a good guy. I'm not going to be shooting up a school, but I have a better chance of stopping one if I have my firearm with me while there.
This one's a bit tough. Colin Ferguson carried a handgun onto an LIRR train and shot 7 (citing from memory, but the number isn't that important) passengers with no provocation. He bought the gun in California, which had among other things a 7 day waiting period at the time. I don't remember anymore what kind of background checks that he went through, but even then you can't really prove that you're a good guy.
But this moves towards what I said earlier about different regulations working better in different places. That happened in lower NY, where inclination towards gun ownership is relatively low. In such a place, you don't want ANYONE outside of maybe a paid security guard going into some places (like a school) armed. But if the reverse is true, and in a crowd of say 100 people you can expect at least a few of them to be armed, then it's no big deal*, as one nut starts shooting and five citizens gun him down in self defense.
*no big deal in the sense that one armed madman can't hold the crowd hostage. It's always a big deal if a loon starts shooting at people.
My other comment should have read "becomes tyranical" but it looks like you knew what I meant.
Let's start that these are all specific to handguns. Non military human firearm deaths from other types of guns are pretty much negligble from what I understand. Drive by shootings with a rifle are kind of impractical.
Reasonable would start with background checks, as well as penalties for attempting to purchase a firearm if you don't qualify (convincted violent criminal etc), though first time should just get a "if you do that again you're in trouble" warning.
Permits are also reasonable, so long as the criteria involve usage and training. Failing permits, waiting periods seem fair, though permits are probably better for all involved, as it allows gun shows to operate without any real interruption, but it still prevents someone from running out and grabbing a gun in the heat of a moment. If you bother to get a permit, you'll probably already have a gun when the heat of the moment comes around.
I'm iffy on concealment, perhaps with a permit.
On the flip side, my major objection to gun control is with what I perceive to be the intent of the 2nd amendment, which to me means "If the government because tyrannical, the people need the means to conduct a revolution."
The KKK example is kind of what I had in mind with my theorem. I still don't know about my premise, which is part of why I'd like to see a genuinely objective study.
Do you have a link to the John Lott study?
BTW, I was once paired up in a class and we all had to take opposite sides of controversial issues. I took the pro gun control stance, and flatten the guy (but pretty much entirely because I was smarter than him, as I think I could have flattened him if we reversed it too). Interestingly enough, doing that research gave me some of my first exposure to reasonable sounding anti gun control arguments. "Cold dead hand" makes a great soundbite but does not make one sound reasonable.
I don't know what percentage of firearm deaths/injuries are from lack of gun safety, but I would guess they are quite small. I can't imagine that the gun control lobby would overlook the easy arguments that could be made if it were common.
As to 'effective' gun control, I meant more that legislation has the potential to be effective, but is dependent more on the implementation than on the phrasing of the laws themselves. Let's play the hypothetical game for a minute:
Unproven premise: Gun control laws reduce crime
Non-controversial (and probably undisputed) premise: Police corruption increases crime
Theorem: When corruption is high, gun control laws increase crime.
This is basically where I was headed with that. I don't *know* that they are necessarily effective, but it's a gut instinct that they can be, but I reiterate that I don't believe a single solution is right for every municipality. As NYC has moved into the top 10 safest big cities in the US recently, it suggests that at a minimum gun control laws are not raising crime rates, and that possibily gun control laws can be an asset to an honest, competent police force.
I would think zip code designation/creation would fall under the responsibilities of the Postal Service, or some associated federal agency, and not be purely up to local officials. I'll have to try and research that one.
But do Ohio zip codes span multiple counties?
In NY, it's not uncommon for a single town/city to have multiple zip codes. In downtown Manhattan, walking around during a lunch break can cross you over a few different zip codes.
My own belief is that gun control *can* be effective, but is neither sufficient nor necessary. Since the factors can vary very widely, that's why I'd like to see the timelines. Not just for DC, but for a variety of places, and not just the year before and the year after, but a 10 year span with the enactment date as the center.
I would expect that if enough data is available, it would show any of the following:
Possibility 1: Short term drop/increase, followed by steady reversal over time
Possibility 2: Statisticly negligble differences
Possibility 3: Noticeable sustained increase or decrease in rates
Further, I would not be surprised if categorization of the areas studied showed different rates for different regions, such as more success in high poverty areas vs less success in low poverty areas or something like that.
I'd love to see a genuinely objective study on it.
Such a nice set of misleading statistics....
You conveniently mention that Vermont and Alaksa don't require any permits, then only list Vermont's violent crime rates. Let's throw in Alaska's:
Alaska: 566.9 per 100,000 (year 2000)
and just for fun, Texas, where at least by reputation gun ownership is high:
Texas: 545.1
Those don't look to be very different from New York's.
Just looking at the data on the surface, there are a few possible conclusions:
1) Gun Control laws are irrelevant to crime rates (not helpful, but not necessarily detrimental).
2) Gun Control laws have different levels of effectiveness in different areas. What works in one place may be a total failure somewhere else.
I'm too lazy to do the research now, but what I'd like to see is a timeline showing violent crime rates in NY and other places before and after enactment of various gun control laws. If in DC rates dropped from 3200 to 1500 after handguns were banned then I'd say it's quite effective there. If it went from 700 to 1500 then I'd say just the opposite.
No, that's correlation.
Bob Saget...
I think my favorite Bob Saget line was this:
"Marijuana is not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction, man. Have you ever sucked some dick for marijuana?"