I can almost see your hands shaking while you repeatedly type the phrase "child brides" - don't forget to breath! You'll need some oxygen to keep coming up with ways to rant about your fetishes while never having the courage to address the topic of the thread. Maybe that's why you're so fascinated by child brides - because it will be a few years before they notice what an intellectual coward you are.
And yet murderers stab and beat people death in FAR larger numbers than anyone is killed by someone using ANY kind of long gun, including rifles that look similar to military rifles, and that includes all accidents and suicides.
And... look at the number of people who legally own and regularly use firearms without ever hurting a soul. The number of people who DO injure or kill others is a minuscule fraction, and most of those are criminals already breaking existing laws. And even if you keep the gang-bangers in the stats, teenagers texting and driving still dwarf them as a cause of deadly mayhem.
True. Semi-automatic rifles can kill tons of school kids, whereas fully automatic rifles can kill shit tons of school kids.
And a guy strolling around a school with a classic pump-action goose hunting shotgun and a shoulder bag full of buck shot can do exactly the same thing. Your fetish for hair splitting over which tool a murderer decides to use while carefully avoiding the fact that they all require a murderer to actually cause any murder is kind of creepy, actually. You haven't even started talking, yet, about how many kids that person could kill with $40 worth of stuff from Home Depot if he wants to take the time to read a few web pages. Will you be ghoulishly writing about the difference between steel, copper, and PVC piping later? Need to know when to tune in.
Even though you're trying to make a different point, you're missing the point. Sure, actual war is horrible and stressful. But the typical kid with problems (like the traumatized, autistic, violent, ignored one that just killed 17 people after giving off sure signs of his willingness and ability to do so, and his desire and likelihood to do so) doesn't experience actual war at all. On the other hand, the guy who played temporary host in a brief foster-like capacity for that kid said in an interview that he'd see him playing violent FPS games for 15 or more hours a day, and that the kid was all about "kill, kill, kill, and blowing things up" and couldn't stop talking about doing so as he played those games. For kids who have trouble separating fantasy from reality, the games are a pure petri dish in which to stoke the urge and desensitize the eventual murderer.
So why not just persuade your fellow Europeans not to use these services, and to start their own? Really, why not? What seems to be the hold-up? Is it that it's a miserable place in which to try to run such a business? Yeah, that makes sense.
I call utter BS here. It is not 1990s when people needed to be in close proximity to their garages to run reliable websites.
Gee, it's almost like they just TOLD you that they migrated away from the older platform specifically so it wouldn't be such a hands-on administrative burden like the older platform.
Funny you should revive this when we have had a teacher shoot up the classroom. Who would have thought giving permission to carry guns into schools where we pay teachers crap and they have a very stressful time isn't a good idea?
Of course he didn't shoot anybody. And as you know, but are lying about through faux-ignorance omission, he had already been found not safe to own guns, and law enforcement had already acted to take them away from him. Which means his possession of one in the school was an example of criminal behavior at every level, violating laws already in place. So as usual, you should be looking at the quality of the enforcement of existing laws.
Meanwhile, you are still cognitively unable to grapple withe concept of murder vs. self defense. You're also inclined to continue to lie (since the statistics are wildly in conflict with your claims, and you know it) about the non-firing use of guns to deter attacks and indeed hold attackers at bay or in place until LEOs arrive. This happens every day, dozens of times a day, hundreds and sometimes thousands of times a week. The number of people convicted of murder or manslaughter while engaged in self defense - especially in their own homes - is vanishingly small. You seem inclined to confuse being required to describe the circumstances of acting in self defense with somehow being convicted of murder.
Your utterly naive, cartoon fantasy notion of being able to carve up an intruder in your house with a knife (exactly the sort of vindictive behavior that WOULD get a jury to consider you to be acting well outside the bounds of necessary self defense) once again demonstrates your disconnect from reality on this entire subject. Yes, sometimes people acting in good faith in self defense face legal jeopardy (gun used, or otherwise), and it's wise to carry some insurance to - if nothing else - have a lawyer handy to help frame your responses to the police when describing events. You can get more than adequate coverage for that exceedingly rare turn of events for about the cost of a pizza every month, without the beer. But no, people acting in self defense aren't convicted of murder every day. But every day, people who act in self defense ARE told every day that they will, after a review, be facing no charges. Tens of thousands of times a year.
Here, let's use some modern conversational English so you can't pretend you don't understand what the framers were saying (which they also explained to you in numerous other documents, transcripts, letters and the like, which you're also pretending you don't know about):
"It looks like we can't have a nice new country without having at least some sort of standing professional military. Nobody in government is allowed to use the existence of that military as a reason to deny individuals their right to keep and bear their own arms."
Of course you already knew that's what the second amendment means, and you're just pretending to be dumb about it so you can attempt to prop up a long-standing lie from the nanny state types.
Great, so an organization infamous for smearing people with whom they have political disagreements, and which receives huge cash endowments from partisan operators and which can be seen as dedicated to changing first amendment protections to more of a government permit arrangement for speech... is "in charge" of removing political speech. That's great.
Cars are used far far more per capita than guns are carried.
Right there, you show either your ignorance on the subject or your deliberate attempt to misinform.
What do you mean by "carry?" The vast, vast majority of gun owners don't "carry" a gun at all. By far (not counting law enforcement and armed guards), the most common actual carriers are criminals who are not allowed to possess guns, and who are typically carrying a stolen or fraudulently procured firearm.
Setting aside the criminals who are already breaking existing laws, that leaves the law abiding people who carry. In states where carry permits are issued and can thus be easily cross referenced to criminal activity, you'll find - as I'm sure you're already aware, but are pretending you don't know so you can engage in rhetorical distraction - that people who carry are among the safest (in terms of accidents involving guns) and by far the most law-abiding demographic in the country. Private citizens who carry are charged and convicted with fewer crimes of any kind (let alone violent crimes involving guns) than even law enforcement officers are.
So even if we take you seriously in your requirement to consider "hours of use" in "carried guns," your notion is pointless unless you break that down in to "legally" and "illegally." Because the legal bunch often carry through most of their waking hours, and commit the least crime of any group you'd like to offer up. That makes their "murders per hour of use" number, effectively, zero. Your need to include criminals already banned from possessing guns carrying illegally procured/possessed guns in your numbers illustrates how well you know that you're deliberately trying to mislead. When it's that obvious that you're willing to engage in deceit in order to present your political narrative, why should we even consider anything you're saying?
Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?
Not NEARLY as much of a problem (in terms of injuries and deaths) as, say, cars. So why do we have YouTube wiping out channels that demonstrate things like safe gun handling at the range, while leaving up channels that highlight reckless driving? Because the people doing it are doing it for political reasons, period.
saying people will willingly and en masse willingly take a far lower paying job
Who said this, specifically? Why are you simply making stuff up?
He isn't advocating any additional training beyond basic gun skills and already required permiting or authority at all.
Right, because he's explicitly and repeatedly said that he'd leave such considerations up to the jurisdictions in question. Why do you keep pretending you're not hearing this?
If someone breaks into my house, and I fire on them and kill them I will be brought up on murder charges.
Why, because you are a vengeful person and shot him in the back while he was running away? Are you someone with that sort of terrible impulse control? You definitely shouldn't drive a car or use kitchen knives around other people, either. People use guns to defend themselves in their homes all the time. They are almost never charged with anything, let alone murder. Why are you making this stuff up? Why do you assume that protecting your life from the act of a murderer is going to result in your sacrificing your life to a murder conviction? You're not even making sense. Self defense is not murder. MURDER is murder.
Plus the cops are just as likely to murder me if I'm even holding a gun
If you are threatening a police officer with a gun, it's not "murder" for them to defend themselves. But why would you be holding a gun in front of the police? If they're on the scene, you have no need to hold a gun in your hands. If they are arriving after you've had to use one, you've already set the gun down and stepped back as you wait for them to arrive. Your complete ignorance of how anyone actually deals with any of this is kind of astonishing, actually.
From the dictionary, so you can help get this sorted out in your head, if you're not really just faking this strange ignorance:
murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Since defending your self isn't unlawfully killing someone, that's not murder. How are you foggy on this concept?
That's my point. I take it in from sources and voices all across the spectrum an media format. We are hearing an unprecedently loud and unhinged call for "no more guns!" that suggests complete confiscation as the solution to the acts of crazy people. This intellectually dishonest discourse is now being given far more uncritical media echo chamber amplification than it deserves or has ever before had. The truth of that observation is especially clear the more places you turn to hear what people are thinking (or, regurgitating, more often).
I haven't seen many gun control advocates asking for AR15s to be banned.
Change the channel a little more often. There are plenty of liberals screaming their desire on that front to the heavens, because they're gambling that low-information voters will give them back the political power they lost. The call to ban "AR-15s" (as if that widely owned rifle was the only semi-auto available) is now loud and frequent.
And one of the surest ways to guarantee that a small company won't be able to show up where there's no service at all and start serving underserved people (exactly the problem in so many rural areas) is to require them to dedicate 96% of their limited bandwidth to cat videos. Telling them they can't decide how to deploy and run their own network is telling them they can't make an offering in those deprived markets. You're worried about places where only one ISP has previously set up shop. You obviously don't understand what it's like to live someplace where there's NO service. Maybe you need to get out more, and visit the places that grow you your food.
No, the priority traffic should be whatever the ISP tells their clients will be their priority traffic. If they're trying to get rural users to sign up because it's going to help rural kids connect to their schools and local community colleges, then that's their priority in shaping traffic. If they're telling their customers that they're all about making sure Game Of Thrones won't buffer on them, while WoW might get a little laggy, then THAT'S their priority. The ISP can sink or swim based on how well they understand and communicate to their customers.
In the sense that we need this service to be available farther past the edge of large urban areas than currently available, which is to say, where there is no Starbucks or Panda Express an easy drive away. Because once you hit the exurbs, it's not about "is 5G better then 4G" or "will the new thing be a little more reliable," but rather "is there any chance of even getting 3G coverage at my house."
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
That would be between me and the company I've chosen to be my ISP. If I think I can get a better deal or better service from a local, rural-community-serving company with limited resources that protects their users from poorer performance because a tiny number of users are inclined to burn up shared bandwidth moving around terabytes of ripped movies, then why would you want to stop me from making that choice?
Slashdot Mirror
I can almost see your hands shaking while you repeatedly type the phrase "child brides" - don't forget to breath! You'll need some oxygen to keep coming up with ways to rant about your fetishes while never having the courage to address the topic of the thread. Maybe that's why you're so fascinated by child brides - because it will be a few years before they notice what an intellectual coward you are.
And yet murderers stab and beat people death in FAR larger numbers than anyone is killed by someone using ANY kind of long gun, including rifles that look similar to military rifles, and that includes all accidents and suicides.
Hey, look! The coward who can't ever comment on the subject matter is back again, and obsessed with children!
And ... look at the number of people who legally own and regularly use firearms without ever hurting a soul. The number of people who DO injure or kill others is a minuscule fraction, and most of those are criminals already breaking existing laws. And even if you keep the gang-bangers in the stats, teenagers texting and driving still dwarf them as a cause of deadly mayhem.
True. Semi-automatic rifles can kill tons of school kids, whereas fully automatic rifles can kill shit tons of school kids.
And a guy strolling around a school with a classic pump-action goose hunting shotgun and a shoulder bag full of buck shot can do exactly the same thing. Your fetish for hair splitting over which tool a murderer decides to use while carefully avoiding the fact that they all require a murderer to actually cause any murder is kind of creepy, actually. You haven't even started talking, yet, about how many kids that person could kill with $40 worth of stuff from Home Depot if he wants to take the time to read a few web pages. Will you be ghoulishly writing about the difference between steel, copper, and PVC piping later? Need to know when to tune in.
Even though you're trying to make a different point, you're missing the point. Sure, actual war is horrible and stressful. But the typical kid with problems (like the traumatized, autistic, violent, ignored one that just killed 17 people after giving off sure signs of his willingness and ability to do so, and his desire and likelihood to do so) doesn't experience actual war at all. On the other hand, the guy who played temporary host in a brief foster-like capacity for that kid said in an interview that he'd see him playing violent FPS games for 15 or more hours a day, and that the kid was all about "kill, kill, kill, and blowing things up" and couldn't stop talking about doing so as he played those games. For kids who have trouble separating fantasy from reality, the games are a pure petri dish in which to stoke the urge and desensitize the eventual murderer.
Which would be funny, if places like France didn't have a higher per capita rate of death from mass shootings than the US.
So what you're saying is that Europeans aren't smart enough to not use them? Why aren't they?
So why not just persuade your fellow Europeans not to use these services, and to start their own? Really, why not? What seems to be the hold-up? Is it that it's a miserable place in which to try to run such a business? Yeah, that makes sense.
I call utter BS here. It is not 1990s when people needed to be in close proximity to their garages to run reliable websites.
Gee, it's almost like they just TOLD you that they migrated away from the older platform specifically so it wouldn't be such a hands-on administrative burden like the older platform.
Funny you should revive this when we have had a teacher shoot up the classroom. Who would have thought giving permission to carry guns into schools where we pay teachers crap and they have a very stressful time isn't a good idea?
Of course he didn't shoot anybody. And as you know, but are lying about through faux-ignorance omission, he had already been found not safe to own guns, and law enforcement had already acted to take them away from him. Which means his possession of one in the school was an example of criminal behavior at every level, violating laws already in place. So as usual, you should be looking at the quality of the enforcement of existing laws.
Meanwhile, you are still cognitively unable to grapple withe concept of murder vs. self defense. You're also inclined to continue to lie (since the statistics are wildly in conflict with your claims, and you know it) about the non-firing use of guns to deter attacks and indeed hold attackers at bay or in place until LEOs arrive. This happens every day, dozens of times a day, hundreds and sometimes thousands of times a week. The number of people convicted of murder or manslaughter while engaged in self defense - especially in their own homes - is vanishingly small. You seem inclined to confuse being required to describe the circumstances of acting in self defense with somehow being convicted of murder.
Your utterly naive, cartoon fantasy notion of being able to carve up an intruder in your house with a knife (exactly the sort of vindictive behavior that WOULD get a jury to consider you to be acting well outside the bounds of necessary self defense) once again demonstrates your disconnect from reality on this entire subject. Yes, sometimes people acting in good faith in self defense face legal jeopardy (gun used, or otherwise), and it's wise to carry some insurance to - if nothing else - have a lawyer handy to help frame your responses to the police when describing events. You can get more than adequate coverage for that exceedingly rare turn of events for about the cost of a pizza every month, without the beer. But no, people acting in self defense aren't convicted of murder every day. But every day, people who act in self defense ARE told every day that they will, after a review, be facing no charges. Tens of thousands of times a year.
So... how big is a table
Well, I've personally been to the Library of Congress, and they have about 100 tables there. So a table is about 0.01 LoC.
In Australia, it would 0.01 LoC mate.
So, where's your well regulated militia?
Oh, look. Another person who can't read.
Here, let's use some modern conversational English so you can't pretend you don't understand what the framers were saying (which they also explained to you in numerous other documents, transcripts, letters and the like, which you're also pretending you don't know about):
"It looks like we can't have a nice new country without having at least some sort of standing professional military. Nobody in government is allowed to use the existence of that military as a reason to deny individuals their right to keep and bear their own arms."
Of course you already knew that's what the second amendment means, and you're just pretending to be dumb about it so you can attempt to prop up a long-standing lie from the nanny state types.
Great, so an organization infamous for smearing people with whom they have political disagreements, and which receives huge cash endowments from partisan operators and which can be seen as dedicated to changing first amendment protections to more of a government permit arrangement for speech ... is "in charge" of removing political speech. That's great.
Cars are used far far more per capita than guns are carried.
Right there, you show either your ignorance on the subject or your deliberate attempt to misinform.
What do you mean by "carry?" The vast, vast majority of gun owners don't "carry" a gun at all. By far (not counting law enforcement and armed guards), the most common actual carriers are criminals who are not allowed to possess guns, and who are typically carrying a stolen or fraudulently procured firearm.
Setting aside the criminals who are already breaking existing laws, that leaves the law abiding people who carry. In states where carry permits are issued and can thus be easily cross referenced to criminal activity, you'll find - as I'm sure you're already aware, but are pretending you don't know so you can engage in rhetorical distraction - that people who carry are among the safest (in terms of accidents involving guns) and by far the most law-abiding demographic in the country. Private citizens who carry are charged and convicted with fewer crimes of any kind (let alone violent crimes involving guns) than even law enforcement officers are.
So even if we take you seriously in your requirement to consider "hours of use" in "carried guns," your notion is pointless unless you break that down in to "legally" and "illegally." Because the legal bunch often carry through most of their waking hours, and commit the least crime of any group you'd like to offer up. That makes their "murders per hour of use" number, effectively, zero. Your need to include criminals already banned from possessing guns carrying illegally procured/possessed guns in your numbers illustrates how well you know that you're deliberately trying to mislead. When it's that obvious that you're willing to engage in deceit in order to present your political narrative, why should we even consider anything you're saying?
Google should have given a quick glance at Lois Lerner's resume before hiring her to run their Department Of Capricious Silencing. Or, maybe they did!
Can you really say that firearms are not a problem for children in the US?
Not NEARLY as much of a problem (in terms of injuries and deaths) as, say, cars. So why do we have YouTube wiping out channels that demonstrate things like safe gun handling at the range, while leaving up channels that highlight reckless driving? Because the people doing it are doing it for political reasons, period.
Monty Python FTW.
saying people will willingly and en masse willingly take a far lower paying job
Who said this, specifically? Why are you simply making stuff up?
He isn't advocating any additional training beyond basic gun skills and already required permiting or authority at all.
Right, because he's explicitly and repeatedly said that he'd leave such considerations up to the jurisdictions in question. Why do you keep pretending you're not hearing this?
If someone breaks into my house, and I fire on them and kill them I will be brought up on murder charges.
Why, because you are a vengeful person and shot him in the back while he was running away? Are you someone with that sort of terrible impulse control? You definitely shouldn't drive a car or use kitchen knives around other people, either. People use guns to defend themselves in their homes all the time. They are almost never charged with anything, let alone murder. Why are you making this stuff up? Why do you assume that protecting your life from the act of a murderer is going to result in your sacrificing your life to a murder conviction? You're not even making sense. Self defense is not murder. MURDER is murder.
Plus the cops are just as likely to murder me if I'm even holding a gun
If you are threatening a police officer with a gun, it's not "murder" for them to defend themselves. But why would you be holding a gun in front of the police? If they're on the scene, you have no need to hold a gun in your hands. If they are arriving after you've had to use one, you've already set the gun down and stepped back as you wait for them to arrive. Your complete ignorance of how anyone actually deals with any of this is kind of astonishing, actually.
From the dictionary, so you can help get this sorted out in your head, if you're not really just faking this strange ignorance:
murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Since defending your self isn't unlawfully killing someone, that's not murder. How are you foggy on this concept?
That's my point. I take it in from sources and voices all across the spectrum an media format. We are hearing an unprecedently loud and unhinged call for "no more guns!" that suggests complete confiscation as the solution to the acts of crazy people. This intellectually dishonest discourse is now being given far more uncritical media echo chamber amplification than it deserves or has ever before had. The truth of that observation is especially clear the more places you turn to hear what people are thinking (or, regurgitating, more often).
I haven't seen many gun control advocates asking for AR15s to be banned.
Change the channel a little more often. There are plenty of liberals screaming their desire on that front to the heavens, because they're gambling that low-information voters will give them back the political power they lost. The call to ban "AR-15s" (as if that widely owned rifle was the only semi-auto available) is now loud and frequent.
And one of the surest ways to guarantee that a small company won't be able to show up where there's no service at all and start serving underserved people (exactly the problem in so many rural areas) is to require them to dedicate 96% of their limited bandwidth to cat videos. Telling them they can't decide how to deploy and run their own network is telling them they can't make an offering in those deprived markets. You're worried about places where only one ISP has previously set up shop. You obviously don't understand what it's like to live someplace where there's NO service. Maybe you need to get out more, and visit the places that grow you your food.
No, the priority traffic should be whatever the ISP tells their clients will be their priority traffic. If they're trying to get rural users to sign up because it's going to help rural kids connect to their schools and local community colleges, then that's their priority in shaping traffic. If they're telling their customers that they're all about making sure Game Of Thrones won't buffer on them, while WoW might get a little laggy, then THAT'S their priority. The ISP can sink or swim based on how well they understand and communicate to their customers.
In the sense that we need this service to be available farther past the edge of large urban areas than currently available, which is to say, where there is no Starbucks or Panda Express an easy drive away. Because once you hit the exurbs, it's not about "is 5G better then 4G" or "will the new thing be a little more reliable," but rather "is there any chance of even getting 3G coverage at my house."
That still doesn't answer as to why your content is more important than mine and should be allowed to flow freely while mine should not.
That would be between me and the company I've chosen to be my ISP. If I think I can get a better deal or better service from a local, rural-community-serving company with limited resources that protects their users from poorer performance because a tiny number of users are inclined to burn up shared bandwidth moving around terabytes of ripped movies, then why would you want to stop me from making that choice?