This, of course, could pose difficulties for Amazon or others who wish to use automated drones pervasively if they want to take off and land practically anywhere. And in my opinion, it should. But I can see it being used for remote deliveries to rural areas, or deliveries to significant-sized businesses or tall rooftops where it's prearranged, expected, and not likely to interfere with young children, pets, random passersby, etc. (or for it and its merchandise to be stolen randomly when the intended recipient doesn't pick it up or meet it right away...)
First, let me say that IMHO the guy shooting the drone acted in a hotheaded, impulsive, and dangerous manner. My post history shows I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but that's for responsible & intelligent handling and use. What this person did was neither smart nor responsible. He should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in the destruction of private property. At the least.
Off-topic in reply to your post, matthewv789:
Where small drones would be extremely useful is in transporting time-sensitive (for patients and/or samples) medical/biological samples, cultures, etc between a rural hospital and a lab facility in the city, or even within the city or a multi-building complex,
Larger size drones could save lives by allowing first responders to put an accident victim directly onto a drone carried as standard equipment for emergency vehicles for immediate air evac to a trauma center, rather than wait for a helicopter to arrive.
It will be a fight, as government is not concerned with how widespread adoption of drone technology affects *your* privacy or safety or well-being (besides media optics for propaganda) so much as they are concerned how it affects *their* privacy and ability to hide things from the public while simultaneously monitoring the general public using the same technology.
"For we but not for thee" seems to be a common sentiment from all in D.C. regardless of Party.
And how the heck is YouTube supposed to know what is 'illicit' and not? So, lets force YouTube to guess? Or, perhaps lets force any site to take down data because someone, somewhere, says it is?
Umm, there's elections coming up and many campaign coffers to fill. Apparently TPTB feel Google has not yet done enough towards that end.
The single thing that is left to keep a Windows install.. are some pretty cool games that are compiled only to run on Windows. This can be remedied.
It *is* being remedied!
Steam has a Linux client. Many current and popular games have stand-alone Linux clients, like War Thunder for just one example. Clients for Windows, Mac, and Linux available (as well as also available on Steam and PS4).
Wind & solar were untested, wild & crazy ideas as well for a long time and similarly lacked investors. The same thing happens with every new technology.
Some of the reluctance to invest is financial/risk based, but much of it is also politically based as well, as old industries press governments to protect their business from competition, including competition from new technologies.
This is particularly true in the US where crony-capitalism is the order of the day. Cheap to the point of nearly-free power takes away a vector for political manipulation of the population as well as threatens current players in the field.
At one point every counter argument you've made against thorium reactors and solar power satellites were made against current methods of power generation & distribution, and in fact against almost every technology we use today. It's simply a matter of overcoming this financial & political inertia. It's not impossible, current wind & solar projects prove that.
I believe it's simply a matter of time and of gathering enough political support to force the politicians in the pockets of the current players to remove disincentives to investment.
There are always risks. If we waited until something was "proven" we would still be riding horses and bleeding the sick as a treatment, and may still have not yet discovered the "New World" (N. America).
It's real easy to say that some scheme that's never been implemented will have all sorts of good qualities, but when we're talking about serious power I'd like to see it working first.
The same can be said for solar or wind as a baseline power source. There are basic physics reasons why solar & wind are problematic at best as a baseline power source. Solar power satellites have been well within technological reach for decades, as have thorium reactors (which have been in wide use at smaller scales in military, industrial, & scientific applications for decades as well).
It's simply the political will to invest & build that is lacking for both thorium reactors and solar power satellites.
That's true only if the goal is *not* to create an almost "Hunger Games" type of scenario where there are only the rich, privileged, ruling-class and an impoverished, heavily-regulated & controlled, serf-class.
That makes no sense at all. And seems completely irrelevant. We can't make real headway in reducing carbon emissions if we don't consider the economic situations of all the countries that can't afford to implement high cost solutions.
It makes a great deal of sense *if* one is able to disconnect themselves from political/ideological loyalties and dismiss political talking points by the pro-AGW crowd. Even if one were to totally remove *all* of the US's CO2 emissions, it would at best result in only a few tenths of a degree change over a century at best.
This is not about global warming. This is about redistribution of wealth on a global scale. It's about creating an unelected global governance and destroying national sovereignty.
Build thorium reactors and build solar power satellites.
Then, energy costs will be extremely low and energy supply extremely reliable, as well as having a very low environmental impact.
Calling living like 21st century 'Flintstones' a "solution" to energy sustainability and related environmental issues is like calling shooting sick people a "solution" for rising medical costs and availability.
The whole world has to play. The whole world has to pay. Its simple when that is ignored.
That's true only if the goal is *not* to create an almost "Hunger Games" type of scenario where there are only the rich, privileged, ruling-class and an impoverished, heavily-regulated & controlled, serf-class.
The choice is to have nuclear waste to manage or recycle, or to not significantly reduce CO2 contribution on a global scale.
Or, simply raise the cost of energy such that people can't afford power 24/7 and must do without power for many things and/or pick a day or two (or more depending) a week where they use no power at all.
Another possibility is to institute local centers paid into like a club where a neighborhood shares the cost of a communal food freezer/refrigerator and communal televisions/computers and do away almost completely with individual ownership of energy consuming devices & technologies.
That seems like the general path we've been set on with these policies.
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
Orly?
"After years of being lambasted by the left as uneducated rubes, a recent study by a Yale law professor proves members of the Tea Party are actually more likely to understand scientific issues than is the rest of the population."
"Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.
When composing histograms of the scientific inference abilities of liberals and conservatives, he discovered that those who described themselves as tea party supporters came out pretty well, based on National Science Foundation standards of evaluation:"
Well, let's see how many mod points you're willing to waste.
What was so bad about clipboards again?
The data on those clipboards are not as easily & quickly accessed by the current administration's political operatives seeking to damage/destroy their political opposition and suppress grassroots movements.
What, you thought there was any other reason that actually mattered to those in power?
The data on those clipboards are not as easily & quickly accessed by the current administration's political operatives seeking to damage/destroy their political opposition and suppress grassroots movements.
What, you thought there was any other reason that actually mattered to those in power?
Patient records are no more safe than credit card info at your local restaurant.
Well, let's keep things in perspective here. The breach only consisted of intimate medical details of little people.
HIPPA-schmippa, it's not like it concerned something vital to national security to keep secret, like the POTUS' college records or original birth certificate.
I'd bet if Congress and other members of the Federal government were required to participate in the ACA (AKA 'Obamacare') like everyone else, security would be much tighter.
...the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which called the ITA expansion 'great news for the American workers and businesses that design, manufacture, and export state-of-the-art technology and information products, ranging from MRI machines to semiconductors to video game consoles.'"
Uh-huh. Right.
You know what would be even better news for US tech hardware exporters?
If they didn't have a huge boat anchor attached in the form of NSA built-in backdoors and vulnerabilities.
Really, if you're a foreign corporation that competes in any way with US corporations/interests/research, or any government/organization/individual that US TLAs could possibly even tangentially term "of interest", would you buy stuff from US makers/manufacturers despite what's been revealed publicly over the last 20 years to present concerning US TLA activity within the US tech manufacturing/exporting industries?
Particularly in light of the recent revelations of so many unlawful and/or unconstitutional programs and activities engaged in by US intelligence organizations courtesy of the courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden, which keep revealing new programs that violate constitutional principles and prohibitions with every new dump from the trove.
US tech companies have to overcome all that (quite understandable and logical) mistrust (good luck!), and *then* compete against other corporations that don't have that perceived millstone around their necks.
This will not turn out well for the US tech industries that need/rely on exporting their goods, and with cheap imports flowing into the US, even those who were national/regional in nature will find themselves priced out of the market.
1. Mining/Drilling - Offshored
2. Steel mfg - Offshored
3. Heavy Industries/Factories - Offshored
4. Artificial politically-motivated limits on energy production and artificially-created increases in cost.
5....?
I'm not liking the direction this is trending.
If it roughly parallels past similar historical scenarios, it doesn't end well for anyone in the US (well, except those 'too big to starve'), neither Left nor Right, nor atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever "ism" or party you favor.
So tell me, why do you want to KILL CHILDREN?? Do you hate them so much?
Just...wow.
Over the top, much?
You need a lot less caffeine or some psychiatric help. Maybe both.
If there had been responsible people with guns at these mass shootings a lot of lives could have been saved.
There's one common thread in these murders. The overwhelming majority occurred in a "gun free zone" but hoplophobes refuse to acknowledge or address the fact that cowardly murderers prefer defenseless victims.
Which is what anti-gun zealots create through their fear, shortsightedness, and political/ideological agendas: Helpless victims for murdering cowards.
It's people that ignore reality and push to disarm law abiding citizens and prevent them from protecting themselves, their families, and others that create helpless victims. They share a large burden of guilt for these atrocities.
How can they enforce the law properly when they do not know it themselves?
Because enforcing the law properly is not a priority. This is proven almost daily as it is extremely rare for law enforcement officers to face any negative repercussions for failing to do so.
You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
When the process = the punishment the law is. in effect, whatever a law enforcement officer decides it is on any given occasion and need not be consistent or comport with the letter of the law in any way.
Welcome to the police/surveillance state formerly known as the United States. See my sig.
Noted! Anyone who quotes this rubbish cannot be taken seriously.
Noted! Anyone who dismisses a concept out of hand because of who said it rather than positing a counter-argument about what was said cannot be taken seriously.
Please keep in mind that I find it insane that the government can hide the law from its citizens; to have a free society the law has to be equal for everyone, and this more than anything else puts a divide between the haves and the have-nots.
I'll just leave this here.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
However, given how cheap armor is compared to other protection options, I don't think we're getting a bad deal here.
Even if armor works perfectly and stops any shrapnel or superheated explosion-related gasses & fire, any really significant detonation will still turn occupants into pink goo from acceleration/deceleration forces.
If a heavily-armored limo gets tossed 500 feet through the air by an explosion, it's game over for the occupants even if the armor's integrity is not breached in any way.
It's sort of like shaking a raw egg inside a metal box. It's gonna be messy.
I'm more at risk of dying from my spouse shooting me or from a weapon-related accident than from being shot at by criminals. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
You quote a NIH study when the NIH is ideologically opposed to firearm ownership to begin with. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I dismiss this for the same reasons you'd dismiss a study funded by the NRA that contradicts it.
The Wiki page you cite does not address mandatory licensed firearm instructor run safety courses in any way. Just a few miles from where I live there is a gun range that does a brisk business in providing said mandatory courses. In the 9 States in which I've personally resided there were similar mandates. And then you cite a Salon article, a well known left-leaning website ideologically opposed to the 2nd Amendment? Really? Bias, much?
FYI, most legal gun owners are more competent and safe with a gun than many, if not most, law enforcement officers, and LEOs carry 24/7, even off-duty.
Complete BS. Most gun owners have trouble distinguishing which end of a gun actually shoots bullets.
You outdo yourself here with both a baseless ad hominem *and* a sweeping generalization with no evidence whatsoever. How "open minded" and Progressive of you.
I also have a right not to be shot by you, because you mess up the safety switch.
Since you've been in the military, you are a high risk for PTSD. So then, you're fine with being forbidden to obtain a driver's license and placed under constant surveillance, since you might snap at any time and decide to plow through a crowd with your 2-1/2 ton missile or go nuts with an axe, right?
A free and open society comes with risks. Being in such a constant state of fear, perhaps you should ask to be sent to a prison where you can be watched & protected from the "scary" world 24/7/365.
Your fear does not trump my natural and Constitutionally protected rights as a human being. Grow a set, or just grow up.
And yes, the actual law-abiding citizens are much safer when only criminals have weapons.
Lolwut!?
Care to explain the (any) logic in that? You know hoplophobia can be treated with therapy and possibly anti-depressant/anxiety medications, right?
Police draw chalk outlines and write reports long after the shooting is over. When seconds count, police are only minutes away. And again, police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect individuals.
For the record, I went through military training and I can use automatic weapons, RPGs and grenades.
So what? There are laws requiring mandatory safety & competency training for legal handgun owners in nearly every jurisdiction. FYI, most legal gun owners are more competent and safe with a gun than many, if not most, law enforcement officers, and LEOs carry 24/7, even off-duty.
On the whole, I'd be far more worried about those LEOs than legal firearms owners, especially since LEOs have limited immunity, the 'thin blue line', and unions at their back to absolve them of liability, which regular citizens do not.
And I still don't even _want_ to have guns at home (And carrying them everyday? That's insane).
It's your right to be a defenseless victim for any armed criminal that comes along. You have no right to make that choice for others. Neither you nor anyone else, including government, will infringe on my natural right to defend my life, my family's lives, and my property, period, full stop.
They just use the clues/data to backtrack alternative paths to the clues/data and claim the clues/data was obtained through those means. The original search warrant need never be mentioned in court, even though the clues/data are used.
[Samuel Jackson voice]
"It's a (government) thug life bitch, we're takin' that shit and you keep your motherfucking mouth shut or I swear to God I'll pop a cap in your motherfucking ass, motherfucker!
Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say 'what' one more Goddamn time!"
Slashdot Mirror
This, of course, could pose difficulties for Amazon or others who wish to use automated drones pervasively if they want to take off and land practically anywhere. And in my opinion, it should. But I can see it being used for remote deliveries to rural areas, or deliveries to significant-sized businesses or tall rooftops where it's prearranged, expected, and not likely to interfere with young children, pets, random passersby, etc. (or for it and its merchandise to be stolen randomly when the intended recipient doesn't pick it up or meet it right away...)
First, let me say that IMHO the guy shooting the drone acted in a hotheaded, impulsive, and dangerous manner. My post history shows I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but that's for responsible & intelligent handling and use. What this person did was neither smart nor responsible. He should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in the destruction of private property. At the least.
Off-topic in reply to your post, matthewv789:
Where small drones would be extremely useful is in transporting time-sensitive (for patients and/or samples) medical/biological samples, cultures, etc between a rural hospital and a lab facility in the city, or even within the city or a multi-building complex,
Larger size drones could save lives by allowing first responders to put an accident victim directly onto a drone carried as standard equipment for emergency vehicles for immediate air evac to a trauma center, rather than wait for a helicopter to arrive.
It will be a fight, as government is not concerned with how widespread adoption of drone technology affects *your* privacy or safety or well-being (besides media optics for propaganda) so much as they are concerned how it affects *their* privacy and ability to hide things from the public while simultaneously monitoring the general public using the same technology.
"For we but not for thee" seems to be a common sentiment from all in D.C. regardless of Party.
Strat
And how the heck is YouTube supposed to know what is 'illicit' and not?
So, lets force YouTube to guess?
Or, perhaps lets force any site to take down data because someone, somewhere, says it is?
Umm, there's elections coming up and many campaign coffers to fill. Apparently TPTB feel Google has not yet done enough towards that end.
What? You thought this was anything else?
Strat
The single thing that is left to keep a Windows install.. are some pretty cool games that are compiled only to run on Windows. This can be remedied.
It *is* being remedied!
Steam has a Linux client. Many current and popular games have stand-alone Linux clients, like War Thunder for just one example. Clients for Windows, Mac, and Linux available (as well as also available on Steam and PS4).
http://warthunder.com/
Strat
Wind & solar were untested, wild & crazy ideas as well for a long time and similarly lacked investors. The same thing happens with every new technology.
Some of the reluctance to invest is financial/risk based, but much of it is also politically based as well, as old industries press governments to protect their business from competition, including competition from new technologies.
This is particularly true in the US where crony-capitalism is the order of the day. Cheap to the point of nearly-free power takes away a vector for political manipulation of the population as well as threatens current players in the field.
At one point every counter argument you've made against thorium reactors and solar power satellites were made against current methods of power generation & distribution, and in fact against almost every technology we use today. It's simply a matter of overcoming this financial & political inertia. It's not impossible, current wind & solar projects prove that.
I believe it's simply a matter of time and of gathering enough political support to force the politicians in the pockets of the current players to remove disincentives to investment.
There are always risks. If we waited until something was "proven" we would still be riding horses and bleeding the sick as a treatment, and may still have not yet discovered the "New World" (N. America).
Strat
It's real easy to say that some scheme that's never been implemented will have all sorts of good qualities, but when we're talking about serious power I'd like to see it working first.
The same can be said for solar or wind as a baseline power source. There are basic physics reasons why solar & wind are problematic at best as a baseline power source. Solar power satellites have been well within technological reach for decades, as have thorium reactors (which have been in wide use at smaller scales in military, industrial, & scientific applications for decades as well).
It's simply the political will to invest & build that is lacking for both thorium reactors and solar power satellites.
Strat
It makes a great deal of sense *if* one is able to disconnect themselves from political/ideological loyalties and dismiss political talking points by the pro-AGW crowd. Even if one were to totally remove *all* of the US's CO2 emissions, it would at best result in only a few tenths of a degree change over a century at best.
This is not about global warming. This is about redistribution of wealth on a global scale. It's about creating an unelected global governance and destroying national sovereignty.
Strat
Build thorium reactors and build solar power satellites.
Then, energy costs will be extremely low and energy supply extremely reliable, as well as having a very low environmental impact.
Calling living like 21st century 'Flintstones' a "solution" to energy sustainability and related environmental issues is like calling shooting sick people a "solution" for rising medical costs and availability.
Strat
The whole world has to play. The whole world has to pay. Its simple when that is ignored.
That's true only if the goal is *not* to create an almost "Hunger Games" type of scenario where there are only the rich, privileged, ruling-class and an impoverished, heavily-regulated & controlled, serf-class.
Strat
The choice is to have nuclear waste to manage or recycle, or to not significantly reduce CO2 contribution on a global scale.
Or, simply raise the cost of energy such that people can't afford power 24/7 and must do without power for many things and/or pick a day or two (or more depending) a week where they use no power at all.
Another possibility is to institute local centers paid into like a club where a neighborhood shares the cost of a communal food freezer/refrigerator and communal televisions/computers and do away almost completely with individual ownership of energy consuming devices & technologies.
That seems like the general path we've been set on with these policies.
Strat
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
Orly?
"After years of being lambasted by the left as uneducated rubes, a recent study by a Yale law professor proves members of the Tea Party are actually more likely to understand scientific issues than is the rest of the population."
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
"Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.
When composing histograms of the scientific inference abilities of liberals and conservatives, he discovered that those who described themselves as tea party supporters came out pretty well, based on National Science Foundation standards of evaluation:"
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/1...
~Sigh~ SMH
Strat
Well, let's see how many mod points you're willing to waste.
What was so bad about clipboards again?
The data on those clipboards are not as easily & quickly accessed by the current administration's political operatives seeking to damage/destroy their political opposition and suppress grassroots movements.
What, you thought there was any other reason that actually mattered to those in power?
Strat
give it a rest buddy
I wish I could, but those who seek personal & political power & control without regard for who or what they harm don't.
Strat
What was so bad about clipboards again?
The data on those clipboards are not as easily & quickly accessed by the current administration's political operatives seeking to damage/destroy their political opposition and suppress grassroots movements.
What, you thought there was any other reason that actually mattered to those in power?
Strat
Patient records are no more safe than credit card info at your local restaurant.
Well, let's keep things in perspective here. The breach only consisted of intimate medical details of little people.
HIPPA-schmippa, it's not like it concerned something vital to national security to keep secret, like the POTUS' college records or original birth certificate.
I'd bet if Congress and other members of the Federal government were required to participate in the ACA (AKA 'Obamacare') like everyone else, security would be much tighter.
Strat
...the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which called the ITA expansion 'great news for the American workers and businesses that design, manufacture, and export state-of-the-art technology and information products, ranging from MRI machines to semiconductors to video game consoles.'"
Uh-huh. Right.
You know what would be even better news for US tech hardware exporters?
If they didn't have a huge boat anchor attached in the form of NSA built-in backdoors and vulnerabilities.
Really, if you're a foreign corporation that competes in any way with US corporations/interests/research, or any government/organization/individual that US TLAs could possibly even tangentially term "of interest", would you buy stuff from US makers/manufacturers despite what's been revealed publicly over the last 20 years to present concerning US TLA activity within the US tech manufacturing/exporting industries?
Particularly in light of the recent revelations of so many unlawful and/or unconstitutional programs and activities engaged in by US intelligence organizations courtesy of the courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden, which keep revealing new programs that violate constitutional principles and prohibitions with every new dump from the trove.
US tech companies have to overcome all that (quite understandable and logical) mistrust (good luck!), and *then* compete against other corporations that don't have that perceived millstone around their necks.
This will not turn out well for the US tech industries that need/rely on exporting their goods, and with cheap imports flowing into the US, even those who were national/regional in nature will find themselves priced out of the market.
1. Mining/Drilling - Offshored
2. Steel mfg - Offshored
3. Heavy Industries/Factories - Offshored
4. Artificial politically-motivated limits on energy production and artificially-created increases in cost.
5. ...?
I'm not liking the direction this is trending.
If it roughly parallels past similar historical scenarios, it doesn't end well for anyone in the US (well, except those 'too big to starve'), neither Left nor Right, nor atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever "ism" or party you favor.
Strat
The only ignorance here is from you quoting that vile nut job Rand, still your usual delusional crap so meh.
Nice ad hominem. Last resort and all that, eh? Too bad you seem incapable of countering the concepts presented in any meaningful way.
The analytical & intellectual content of your post speaks for itself. I need not reply further.
Good day, sir!
Strat
So tell me, why do you want to KILL CHILDREN?? Do you hate them so much?
Just...wow.
Over the top, much?
You need a lot less caffeine or some psychiatric help. Maybe both.
If there had been responsible people with guns at these mass shootings a lot of lives could have been saved.
There's one common thread in these murders. The overwhelming majority occurred in a "gun free zone" but hoplophobes refuse to acknowledge or address the fact that cowardly murderers prefer defenseless victims.
Which is what anti-gun zealots create through their fear, shortsightedness, and political/ideological agendas: Helpless victims for murdering cowards.
It's people that ignore reality and push to disarm law abiding citizens and prevent them from protecting themselves, their families, and others that create helpless victims. They share a large burden of guilt for these atrocities.
Good day, sir!
How can they enforce the law properly when they do not know it themselves?
Because enforcing the law properly is not a priority. This is proven almost daily as it is extremely rare for law enforcement officers to face any negative repercussions for failing to do so.
You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
When the process = the punishment the law is. in effect, whatever a law enforcement officer decides it is on any given occasion and need not be consistent or comport with the letter of the law in any way.
Welcome to the police/surveillance state formerly known as the United States. See my sig.
Strat
Noted! Anyone who quotes this rubbish cannot be taken seriously.
Noted! Anyone who dismisses a concept out of hand because of who said it rather than positing a counter-argument about what was said cannot be taken seriously.
Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance.
Strat
Please keep in mind that I find it insane that the government can hide the law from its citizens; to have a free society the law has to be equal for everyone, and this more than anything else puts a divide between the haves and the have-nots.
I'll just leave this here.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Strat
However, given how cheap armor is compared to other protection options, I don't think we're getting a bad deal here.
Even if armor works perfectly and stops any shrapnel or superheated explosion-related gasses & fire, any really significant detonation will still turn occupants into pink goo from acceleration/deceleration forces.
If a heavily-armored limo gets tossed 500 feet through the air by an explosion, it's game over for the occupants even if the armor's integrity is not breached in any way.
It's sort of like shaking a raw egg inside a metal box. It's gonna be messy.
Strat
I'm more at risk of dying from my spouse shooting me or from a weapon-related accident than from being shot at by criminals. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
You quote a NIH study when the NIH is ideologically opposed to firearm ownership to begin with. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I dismiss this for the same reasons you'd dismiss a study funded by the NRA that contradicts it.
Incorrect. There are no such laws in pretty much EVERY state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Wiki page you cite does not address mandatory licensed firearm instructor run safety courses in any way. Just a few miles from where I live there is a gun range that does a brisk business in providing said mandatory courses. In the 9 States in which I've personally resided there were similar mandates. And then you cite a Salon article, a well known left-leaning website ideologically opposed to the 2nd Amendment? Really? Bias, much?
You outdo yourself here with both a baseless ad hominem *and* a sweeping generalization with no evidence whatsoever. How "open minded" and Progressive of you.
I also have a right not to be shot by you, because you mess up the safety switch.
Since you've been in the military, you are a high risk for PTSD. So then, you're fine with being forbidden to obtain a driver's license and placed under constant surveillance, since you might snap at any time and decide to plow through a crowd with your 2-1/2 ton missile or go nuts with an axe, right?
A free and open society comes with risks. Being in such a constant state of fear, perhaps you should ask to be sent to a prison where you can be watched & protected from the "scary" world 24/7/365.
Your fear does not trump my natural and Constitutionally protected rights as a human being. Grow a set, or just grow up.
Strat
And yes, the actual law-abiding citizens are much safer when only criminals have weapons.
Lolwut!?
Care to explain the (any) logic in that? You know hoplophobia can be treated with therapy and possibly anti-depressant/anxiety medications, right?
Police draw chalk outlines and write reports long after the shooting is over. When seconds count, police are only minutes away. And again, police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect individuals.
For the record, I went through military training and I can use automatic weapons, RPGs and grenades.
So what? There are laws requiring mandatory safety & competency training for legal handgun owners in nearly every jurisdiction. FYI, most legal gun owners are more competent and safe with a gun than many, if not most, law enforcement officers, and LEOs carry 24/7, even off-duty.
On the whole, I'd be far more worried about those LEOs than legal firearms owners, especially since LEOs have limited immunity, the 'thin blue line', and unions at their back to absolve them of liability, which regular citizens do not.
And I still don't even _want_ to have guns at home (And carrying them everyday? That's insane).
It's your right to be a defenseless victim for any armed criminal that comes along. You have no right to make that choice for others. Neither you nor anyone else, including government, will infringe on my natural right to defend my life, my family's lives, and my property, period, full stop.
Strat
They just use the clues/data to backtrack alternative paths to the clues/data and claim the clues/data was obtained through those means. The original search warrant need never be mentioned in court, even though the clues/data are used.
[Samuel Jackson voice]
"It's a (government) thug life bitch, we're takin' that shit and you keep your motherfucking mouth shut or I swear to God I'll pop a cap in your motherfucking ass, motherfucker!
Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say 'what' one more Goddamn time!"
[/Samuel Jackson voice]
Word!
Strat
I could refer you to this study as an example of the myth of the gun defense argument.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
One can use carefully-chosen and cherry-picked statistics to prove whatever one wishes.
When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
No amount of statistics will disprove that maxim.
Police are also under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect individuals.
You can choose to take responsibility for your own personal safety or you can choose to become a statistic yourself.
Your choice.
Just do not remove that choice (and Constitutionally-protected & SCOTUS-affirmed civil right) for others.
Strat