If they gave me 36.5 million dollars I wouldn't be running off to work for Yahoo. I'd try to invest the money sensibly and retire.
Unless you decide to take up "literally burning piles of money" as a hobby, you don't have to do anything sensible with 36.5 million dollars to be able to retire on it.
You might not be able to buy 250 million dollar yachts and play with the real big boys, but who cares?
Massachusetts is a leftist socialized paradise, that and corporate cronyism is like stink on shit, you are not getting rid of it.
Now pay up sucka and remember to vote Obama.
Have a little tap from the cluestick: socialism and any form of capitalism are mutually exclusive. This is true regardless of whether you are a left or right winger.
There comes a point at which the difficulty and burden of complying with massively complex taxes and regulations becomes too great, and the small business says "It's just not worth the effort".
If gas taxes are not covering the costs of road repair for example...we should be taxing more for it.
People like you always miss the point that infrastructure is not a series of discrete services that people can opt in and out of. If I walk to the supermarket instead of drive, the roads still need to be repaired so that trucks can deliver goods there.
Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
Don'cha know, all economic growth comes through government spending. If you believe that, I've got a $125K job for you collecting tolls on the Turnpike.
Not all, but in a recession, borrowing some money to fund things like building toll roads or schools or laying fibre optic cable could well be a better idea than paying welfare benefits to a load of unemployed construction workers.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason.
Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?
As with guns, it's not the people who hurt themselves that we're worried about. Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large. Some of that is economically-driven and could be reduced by making it legal, but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids, or expect their parents to mop up after them.
Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.
I imagine the rapist would overpower the woman first, tie them up and search for their 'pinky'.
And what happens to all the women in the military who are raped?
An insurgency on American soil would have one huge advantage that neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong had: The extreme reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own people. Throughout history, native armies sent out to suppress rebellions, have joined them instead.
Untrue. Look at the British Army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. If someone shoots or blows up one of your fellow soldiers, they are the enemy, whether they speak the same language (with a different accent) or not.
In a US insurgency, the insurgents would obviously be characterised as terrorists by the government. A quick reminder of 9/11 and you're away.
They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle
Neither did the Vietcong. But in the end, they won the war.
In the end, the Vietnamese people won the war. The US was only ever nominally protecting the people against communists; the fact is that it was up to the Vietnamese people, not the US, whether they wanted a communist government.
I think we should mandate background checks of participants before protests. Think of all the rapes and muggings we could have prevented if Occupy participants were checked out before they were allowed to participate.
1. There is nothing special about protesters or Occupy participants.
2. We don't have pre-crime.
3. You can rape or mug without any additional equipment.
4. I don't understand your analogy in the slightest.
That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."
Actually, yes I do want fewer bank robbers (and police) being shot if possible. But that's fairly irrelevant. No one's saying that you can prevent 100% of criminals from acquiring weapons, any more than you can with terrorists. But that doesn't mean we allow terrorists to freely import machine guns, rocket launchers and so on.
I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.
It's not a right to have access to some recreational activity. It's about the right to have access to the tools to protect yourself, your family, and if need be, your society.
You're missing the (admittedly weak) argument being used, namely that guns aren't just for killing people.
People here are trying to equate guns with a hammer or saw, i.e. just tools that can be used for all sorts of things, and only coincidentally for killing someone. It's like saying that because you could use nuclear weapons to clear land for engineering purposes, therefore they have more than one purpose and so should be freely available.
If I was a burglar/criminal and lived somewhere where most potential victims were armed, is it more or less likely that I would go armed myself?
I'd say it would be practically certain that all criminals would carry guns.
So any potential confrontation is highly likely to involve someone getting shot and quite likely killed, which is why you have such a high murder rate in the US.
In somewhere like the UK, the most likely outcome is the burglar running away when confronted.
Same with fights outside pubs, most likely you'll have a few punches thrown and some cuts and bruises. Unless there's a psycho involved, death is a rare occurrence. Whereas if you have two drunk people each with a gun, the result is almost inevitable.
How do you quantify the crime that doesn't occur due to fear of being shot upon entry? I don't see how anyone could figure this out but if legal weapons are removed we'll find out our answers the hard way.
How do you quantify the number of crimes where the criminal feels he has to be armed, and has to use violence early in order to subdue a threat from a potentially armed victim?
Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.
You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.
In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.
The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets.
Right. And the primary purpose of an nuclear missile is to propel a warhead to hit what the firer wants. It is designed to be ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. The UK has many nuclear weapons, and guess what? The only thing we have ever blown up is targets.
Your argument is totally specious.
Now, guns can be used to kill animals as well as people, granted. Hunting is a legitimate use, and can quite easily be controlled by only giving hunting licenses to people who need them, have training and aren't insane.
But to say that is a basic human right to have guns so you can go target shooting is just ridiculous.
Thats not to mention that if you banned handguns except with special licenses, he'd be less likely to have one, and someone pretty responsible, like say, a teacher, should be encouraged to go get their license and carry a handgun. Yes, they should have a handgun around your children. Oh the danger of it all! You're already trusting the safety and minds of your children to these people for 5 days of the week. They should have all available tools to help them maintain that safety. You know what most all of the mass shootings have in common? A single somewhat practiced handgun owner could have put them down in a matter of minutes and cut the death toll by half or more.
Personally, I wouldn't want someone carrying a gun teaching my children, but I know you Americans love your Rugged Outlaw fantasies.
So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?
Even if there was a direct correlation between restricting access to firearms and in increase in overall violence (i.e. assuming we completely forget that causation!=correlation) I would say that a reduction in fatalities at the cost of an increase in lower level violence was definitely worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
If they gave me 36.5 million dollars I wouldn't be running off to work for Yahoo. I'd try to invest the money sensibly and retire.
Unless you decide to take up "literally burning piles of money" as a hobby, you don't have to do anything sensible with 36.5 million dollars to be able to retire on it.
You might not be able to buy 250 million dollar yachts and play with the real big boys, but who cares?
Massachusetts is a leftist socialized paradise, that and corporate cronyism is like stink on shit, you are not getting rid of it.
Now pay up sucka and remember to vote Obama.
Have a little tap from the cluestick: socialism and any form of capitalism are mutually exclusive. This is true regardless of whether you are a left or right winger.
The simplest tax system is to charge everybody 100% on everything, then distribute the proceeds according to need.
There comes a point at which the difficulty and burden of complying with massively complex taxes and regulations becomes too great, and the small business says "It's just not worth the effort".
Civilisation is not a free gift.
If gas taxes are not covering the costs of road repair for example...we should be taxing more for it.
People like you always miss the point that infrastructure is not a series of discrete services that people can opt in and out of. If I walk to the supermarket instead of drive, the roads still need to be repaired so that trucks can deliver goods there.
Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
Don'cha know, all economic growth comes through government spending. If you believe that, I've got a $125K job for you collecting tolls on the Turnpike.
Not all, but in a recession, borrowing some money to fund things like building toll roads or schools or laying fibre optic cable could well be a better idea than paying welfare benefits to a load of unemployed construction workers.
As an atheist, I don't care that you believe in God or the Tooth Fairy, I just object when your beliefs impact on me.
I support the legalization of pot vs keeping heroin illegal for this reason.
Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?
As with guns, it's not the people who hurt themselves that we're worried about. Heroin addicts fuck up their families, children and society at large. Some of that is economically-driven and could be reduced by making it legal, but I still wouldn't let a full time junkie have kids, or expect their parents to mop up after them.
Penn & Teller in their 2nd Amendment BS show asked, "What would happen if we trained and issued a pink pistol to every woman when they turned 18. They can sell the gun, not carry it, their choice, but they get one. Lets say half give up their 'pinky' because they don't want it. What would happen to the rape cases when a rapist realizes that there is a 50% chance that Jamie has a gun...." I'd say that is a pretty big deterrent.
I imagine the rapist would overpower the woman first, tie them up and search for their 'pinky'.
And what happens to all the women in the military who are raped?
An insurgency on American soil would have one huge advantage that neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong had: The extreme reluctance of soldiers to fire on their own people. Throughout history, native armies sent out to suppress rebellions, have joined them instead.
Untrue. Look at the British Army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. If someone shoots or blows up one of your fellow soldiers, they are the enemy, whether they speak the same language (with a different accent) or not.
In a US insurgency, the insurgents would obviously be characterised as terrorists by the government. A quick reminder of 9/11 and you're away.
They haven't won a single strategic or tactical battle
Neither did the Vietcong. But in the end, they won the war.
In the end, the Vietnamese people won the war. The US was only ever nominally protecting the people against communists; the fact is that it was up to the Vietnamese people, not the US, whether they wanted a communist government.
I think that counts as blasphemy on slashdot.
I think we should mandate background checks of participants before protests. Think of all the rapes and muggings we could have prevented if Occupy participants were checked out before they were allowed to participate.
1. There is nothing special about protesters or Occupy participants.
2. We don't have pre-crime.
3. You can rape or mug without any additional equipment.
4. I don't understand your analogy in the slightest.
I rather like it better that I can defend myself.
You only need guns to defend yourself when (a) everyone else has guns and (b) civilisation has collapsed.
Good luck with your End of Days apocalyptic fantasies.
Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles?
Sounds fair enough to me.
Do you want less horsepower in your car? Do you want to be electronically limited to 75mph?
Again, why not?
I want fewer gun deaths.
That's a silly thing to want - what about bank robbers who shoot it out with the cops? Do you think the cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot back? Because, realize it or not, that's what you mean when you say, "I want fewer gun deaths."
Actually, yes I do want fewer bank robbers (and police) being shot if possible. But that's fairly irrelevant. No one's saying that you can prevent 100% of criminals from acquiring weapons, any more than you can with terrorists. But that doesn't mean we allow terrorists to freely import machine guns, rocket launchers and so on.
I don't give a shit about your right to go out to a shooting range with your gun fetish and hit fake targets.
It's not a right to have access to some recreational activity. It's about the right to have access to the tools to protect yourself, your family, and if need be, your society.
You're missing the (admittedly weak) argument being used, namely that guns aren't just for killing people.
People here are trying to equate guns with a hammer or saw, i.e. just tools that can be used for all sorts of things, and only coincidentally for killing someone. It's like saying that because you could use nuclear weapons to clear land for engineering purposes, therefore they have more than one purpose and so should be freely available.
So NASCAR should be outlawed then I take it? It is clearly a threat to more than just those who are driving the cars.
The spectators are there willingly. As far as I am aware NASCAR attendance isn't compulsory.
I'd say it would be practically certain that all criminals would carry guns.
So any potential confrontation is highly likely to involve someone getting shot and quite likely killed, which is why you have such a high murder rate in the US.
In somewhere like the UK, the most likely outcome is the burglar running away when confronted.
Same with fights outside pubs, most likely you'll have a few punches thrown and some cuts and bruises. Unless there's a psycho involved, death is a rare occurrence. Whereas if you have two drunk people each with a gun, the result is almost inevitable.
How do you quantify the crime that doesn't occur due to fear of being shot upon entry? I don't see how anyone could figure this out but if legal weapons are removed we'll find out our answers the hard way.
How do you quantify the number of crimes where the criminal feels he has to be armed, and has to use violence early in order to subdue a threat from a potentially armed victim?
Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.
You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.
In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.
The govt really has NO business knowing what weapons I own, nor how many.
So what right does it have to know what explosives, tanks, assault helicopters and nuclear weapons you have?
Oh, that's right, it's to keep the rest of us safe from maniacs.
The primary purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet to hit what the shooter wants. It is designed to ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. I have several guns, and guess what? The only thing I have ever shot is targets.
Right. And the primary purpose of an nuclear missile is to propel a warhead to hit what the firer wants. It is designed to be ABLE to kill things (including people), but they are not designed so that killing is their primary function. The UK has many nuclear weapons, and guess what? The only thing we have ever blown up is targets.
Your argument is totally specious.
Now, guns can be used to kill animals as well as people, granted. Hunting is a legitimate use, and can quite easily be controlled by only giving hunting licenses to people who need them, have training and aren't insane.
But to say that is a basic human right to have guns so you can go target shooting is just ridiculous.
Thats not to mention that if you banned handguns except with special licenses, he'd be less likely to have one, and someone pretty responsible, like say, a teacher, should be encouraged to go get their license and carry a handgun. Yes, they should have a handgun around your children. Oh the danger of it all! You're already trusting the safety and minds of your children to these people for 5 days of the week. They should have all available tools to help them maintain that safety. You know what most all of the mass shootings have in common? A single somewhat practiced handgun owner could have put them down in a matter of minutes and cut the death toll by half or more.
Personally, I wouldn't want someone carrying a gun teaching my children, but I know you Americans love your Rugged Outlaw fantasies.
So yea, less "mass killings," but shitloads more rape, robbery, and assault. Doesn't seem like that one belongs in the "win" column, now does it?
Even if there was a direct correlation between restricting access to firearms and in increase in overall violence (i.e. assuming we completely forget that causation!=correlation) I would say that a reduction in fatalities at the cost of an increase in lower level violence was definitely worth it.