Like how gun ownership rates are directly correlated to familial murder rates while having no bearing on non familial murder rates.
Or that states with high gun ownership have about the same rate of non-gun murders, but more than twice as many gun murders?
The thing is, you're wrong. You're wrong in a constitutionally protected way, but your beliefs are outright contrary to any sort of factual observation.
In the UK, these are licenses for ownership. In the US, you're talking about the now almost defunct issuing for permits for concealed carry, since shall issue is almost universal default even for that.
You have to be aware that stabbing people to death isn't easy. That it's intimate, requires physical struggle, requires proximity, strength, and swiftness, a good knowledge how to deliver deadly blows. People can run away, and then you can't hurt them, unless you chase.
Honestly, how can you live with yourself, when you are so intentionally duplicitous? Are you okay with doing that? I mean... really? Do you believe the things you're saying? Honestly? Is "winning" random-ass internet gun debates so important to you that your honesty is worth it?
Yeah, actually, that friend is one characteristic that really does separate school shooters from others in similar positions, according to a Nova special I watched. A single person you can trust and talk to diminishes the false sense that all of humanity is a horrible, wretched mass deserving death, that experiences like yours engenders.
Also, as a metadiscussion, you have now walked into the "intentionally being dishonest because you're defending an ideological viewpoint to the death" territory. Please stop this conversation and start a different one. I've got no interest in deconstructing dishonest points. I don't mind disagreement, but purposeful deceit as a rhetorical tactic is exhausting and leads to me learning nothing from you.
Nope, sorry. While you transition to a valid concern, the dismissal you lead with isn't quite right.
Firearm availability is one of the factors in these sorts of things. The kind of people who engage in emotionally driven mass shootings aren't the same kind of people who rise to any obstacle that impedes their plans. Barriers to firearm access(which isn't the same as ownership) would curtail these kinds of shootings.
To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.
Not even remotely similar to anything proposed in the US as common sense.
Heavy hardback books dropped on it's flat side from 2ish meters will absolutely either have or nearly have those characteristics. Believe it or not, the total kinetic energy levels involved are quite similar.
As a completely unabashed gun control proponent, nothing billed under the term "common sense" actually addresses this kind of shooting(which also shouldn't be the main target of gun control legislation, lives lost in mass shootings aren't more important than those lost one at time).
Most mental disorders are undiagnosed, many school shooters use firearms belonging to family members who don't share their disorders, and as long as the identities of gun owners is somehow considered sacrosanct and unrecorded, purchases under false pretenses will happen.
People aren't deterministic. If you haven't undergone substantial emotional strain sometime in middle or high school, you're still in elementary school. Combine that strain with a personality disorder(like psychopathy or borderline) and easy access to firearms, and in at least a few of those cases, a kid is going to make a terrible decision.
People like to simplify down to just the firearms or just the mental disorders can explain it, but it really has to do with people who see no control over their lives, with mental disorders, and seeing the ability to get firearms as an easy answer. All 3 play together.
Look, if both nations are in violation of a treaty, they tend to agree to dissolve it(unless politicized grandstanding about the evils the others guys are doing is more politically expedient). You're really reaching here.
Yeah, but sometimes you need something that's like a list, but subtly different, and you need to be able to sort by hand(perhaps because sorting is connected to another piece of computation).
If you can't do that, you're not a good programmer.
Oh, this is a brilliant line of reasoning from the crowd that brought us the "have scientists considered the sun, yet?" argument.
No. It's never been an existential crisis. There are 2 kinds of people claiming that, 1. A few non-scientist ultra-enviornmentalists attempting to make over-the-top rhetorical arguments and 2. Idiots on the right wing who find that strawman easy to take apart.
So, why bother if we're not jumping immediately and completely? Because 3 more degrees C by 2100 is a lot better in terms of consequences than 5 more degrees C by 2100.
And it ignores that relatively basic notion that treaties of this sort tend to have binding requirements that actually allow for trade-based disincentives for breaking them.
China doesn't want increased trade tariffs as a penalty to violating the treaty. Oh, sure they'll fudge their official numbers to look like they're in compliance when they're not sometimes, but that's just how laws influence behavior anyways.
Yeah, but see, since the apple marketing machine finally got around to making "replacing your credit cards" as essential feature of smartphones(in the US), everyone who already had all the tech to do it is eager to be the public face of doing it on Android.
nVidia making GPUs would be "news" if somehow it became popular and cool to discuss GPUs in public.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yes, let's talk about murder statistics.
Like how gun ownership rates are directly correlated to familial murder rates while having no bearing on non familial murder rates.
Or that states with high gun ownership have about the same rate of non-gun murders, but more than twice as many gun murders?
The thing is, you're wrong. You're wrong in a constitutionally protected way, but your beliefs are outright contrary to any sort of factual observation.
Spoiler: bayonets ceased to be a serious thing when semi-automatic weapons became normal.
You misunderstand.
In the UK, these are licenses for ownership. In the US, you're talking about the now almost defunct issuing for permits for concealed carry, since shall issue is almost universal default even for that.
Very different levels of restriction.
You have to know you're lying.
You have to be aware that stabbing people to death isn't easy. That it's intimate, requires physical struggle, requires proximity, strength, and swiftness, a good knowledge how to deliver deadly blows. People can run away, and then you can't hurt them, unless you chase.
Honestly, how can you live with yourself, when you are so intentionally duplicitous? Are you okay with doing that? I mean... really? Do you believe the things you're saying? Honestly? Is "winning" random-ass internet gun debates so important to you that your honesty is worth it?
And that's... bullshit. A fantasy.
You're not wrong.
Yeah, actually, that friend is one characteristic that really does separate school shooters from others in similar positions, according to a Nova special I watched. A single person you can trust and talk to diminishes the false sense that all of humanity is a horrible, wretched mass deserving death, that experiences like yours engenders.
Also, as a metadiscussion, you have now walked into the "intentionally being dishonest because you're defending an ideological viewpoint to the death" territory. Please stop this conversation and start a different one. I've got no interest in deconstructing dishonest points. I don't mind disagreement, but purposeful deceit as a rhetorical tactic is exhausting and leads to me learning nothing from you.
You say that like stabbings and shootings are the same.
Guns weren't invented because they made killing harder.
Nope, sorry. While you transition to a valid concern, the dismissal you lead with isn't quite right.
Firearm availability is one of the factors in these sorts of things. The kind of people who engage in emotionally driven mass shootings aren't the same kind of people who rise to any obstacle that impedes their plans. Barriers to firearm access(which isn't the same as ownership) would curtail these kinds of shootings.
Not even remotely similar to anything proposed in the US as common sense.
Hey, fun fact: kinetic energy isn't always the most relevant measure for deadliness.
Oh no, two versions of an open source technology. Thank god Linux still only has that one distribution.
Really, though, I can see no downsides to this change.
Heavy hardback books dropped on it's flat side from 2ish meters will absolutely either have or nearly have those characteristics. Believe it or not, the total kinetic energy levels involved are quite similar.
As a completely unabashed gun control proponent, nothing billed under the term "common sense" actually addresses this kind of shooting(which also shouldn't be the main target of gun control legislation, lives lost in mass shootings aren't more important than those lost one at time).
Most mental disorders are undiagnosed, many school shooters use firearms belonging to family members who don't share their disorders, and as long as the identities of gun owners is somehow considered sacrosanct and unrecorded, purchases under false pretenses will happen.
People aren't deterministic. If you haven't undergone substantial emotional strain sometime in middle or high school, you're still in elementary school. Combine that strain with a personality disorder(like psychopathy or borderline) and easy access to firearms, and in at least a few of those cases, a kid is going to make a terrible decision.
People like to simplify down to just the firearms or just the mental disorders can explain it, but it really has to do with people who see no control over their lives, with mental disorders, and seeing the ability to get firearms as an easy answer. All 3 play together.
Why would they calibrate the system that carefully?
Not all firearms make the same sounds, and excessive elimination of false positives is a bad idea for any sensor system.
Look, if both nations are in violation of a treaty, they tend to agree to dissolve it(unless politicized grandstanding about the evils the others guys are doing is more politically expedient). You're really reaching here.
Yeah, but sometimes you need something that's like a list, but subtly different, and you need to be able to sort by hand(perhaps because sorting is connected to another piece of computation).
If you can't do that, you're not a good programmer.
Oh, this is a brilliant line of reasoning from the crowd that brought us the "have scientists considered the sun, yet?" argument.
No. It's never been an existential crisis. There are 2 kinds of people claiming that, 1. A few non-scientist ultra-enviornmentalists attempting to make over-the-top rhetorical arguments and 2. Idiots on the right wing who find that strawman easy to take apart.
The actual analyses of climate changes effects show an unpleasant, but not extinction level, result that's far more economically expensive than changeover to renewables would ever be.
So, why bother if we're not jumping immediately and completely? Because 3 more degrees C by 2100 is a lot better in terms of consequences than 5 more degrees C by 2100.
And it ignores that relatively basic notion that treaties of this sort tend to have binding requirements that actually allow for trade-based disincentives for breaking them.
China doesn't want increased trade tariffs as a penalty to violating the treaty. Oh, sure they'll fudge their official numbers to look like they're in compliance when they're not sometimes, but that's just how laws influence behavior anyways.
Jeez, it's almost like an open software ecosystem can have a lot of variation.
Can you believe that there are droids with no cameras or touchscreens? Some aren't even phones!
Yeah, but see, since the apple marketing machine finally got around to making "replacing your credit cards" as essential feature of smartphones(in the US), everyone who already had all the tech to do it is eager to be the public face of doing it on Android.
nVidia making GPUs would be "news" if somehow it became popular and cool to discuss GPUs in public.
HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Keyboard Layout\Preload\1
The value is numberic, so you have to know. US standard is 409(I believe). Don't know what you want.
It's not circular reasoning when you're defining a term.
Yeah, but I was talking about people taking him seriously. Not whether he was right.