How's that February local produce working out for you? Or are you talking about a "farmer's market" that has stuff brought in from thousands of miles away? Or is it possible you're talking about a region with a climate that isn't like many other places?
Paying for a recording of a concert, that the person who made the recording is happy to share, is what they dislike.
They also seem to believe that when an artist offers up the work they've just spent years creating via a business model that does include buying a copy of it, that if they don't feel like paying for that copy, it's OK to just rip it off to show that artist how wrong headed they are. If all of those "freetards" had the intellectual integrity to not consume the work produced by people whom they judge evil for supporting the copyright system, then I'd have some sympathy. But people rip stuff off because they want it and don't feel like doing business with the work's creator on the terms offered. Think an artist is a fool or a jackass for asking a price for their recordings? Walk away and don't support them. But this is rarely about judging the artist's decisions about how to pay for years worth of studio work - this is mostly about jerks ripping off stuff they want because they can.
No. None of them have been burned alive, and they all have lawyers. And in many cases, we'd love to get rid of them, but can't find a country that will take them back. In other cases, they are more than just simple criminals, their associates continue in a deliberate attempt to kill people, and the means by which they were apprehended are in some cases extremely delicate. Should the administration not have run back and forth across the legal street like a squirrel in front of traffic while trying to decide whether to use a court in NY, then drop criminal charges, then re-instate military charges, and whatnot? Sure. But that's not the same as a lynch mob.
Since nobody can be as incapable of parsing the written word as you're pretending to be, it's clearer now that you're just a kid trolling. Should have spotted it sooner, and not wasted time seeing if there was some way for you to recognize your own mixed premises, hypocrisy, double standards, and deliberate irrationality. Whew! Just a troll. This all makes more sense, now.
He "stole" those guns in the exact same way he "stole" eggs and orange juice from her every morning when he ate breakfast.
No, he was legally prohibited from using them without her active supervision. It's like a 15-year-old taking dad's car out on the road. It's by definition illegal possession/use.
Yes, because it's really important to gain access to your dead family member's firearms ASAP.
Or, perhaps he's neither he nor his brother are idiots, and realize that people tend to keep important legal documents like wills and such in the same safe as their guns. Because most people don't need more than one safe. And yeah, one a family member dies, it's often pretty important to be able to get to their personal papers. You actually need someone to explain this to you?
When you hear a gun shot, that bad guy already has shot someone.
Or missed someone. Why do make this assumption?
So that dead someone likely had a gun like you.
Why? Criminals kill unarmed people all the time. How do you come to the conclusion that a shot you hear in the distance means either of the things you just said? For all you know, the criminal tried to shoot out a door deadbolt, or shot a dog. Or was nervous and bad at handling a gun, and shot himself in the foot while climbing through a window.
That you are so mad and get your own gun to confront the bad guy instead of running away is your problem...
How many doors do you have to your bedroom or office? What if your kids are asleep down the hall from you? You're right. Probably better to jump out the window and let the kids fend for themselves. Home invasions that end in rapes and murders and crime-scene-covering arson definitely go more smoothly when people follow your suggestions. You are super smart, obviously.
Really? It's routine news. Regardless, check out studies done by Florida State University, the Cato Institute, and countless others. Extremely conservative estimates put crimes stopped by the brandishing (not firing) of a gun to be well over 100,000 per year - with common estimates being well over half a million. Just the numbers that involve actually shooting someone in self defense eclipse shootings of the kind most people call "gun violence" in the murderous sense. Obviously, "burglar run off by armed homeowner" rarely makes the news, let alone typical stats-keeping at the normal law enforcement level. My own incident never got that far, it just worked, and that's all I cared about. Several similar incidents that I've witnessed, same story. But Dr. Kleck's study at FSU puts the number between 800,000 and 2,500,000 per year.
Let's say he's overestimating by a factor of four. It's still wildly more than the number of non-accidental shootings. And accidental shootings (as a fraction of gun ownership) is still smaller than the number of accidental deaths from, say, people not handling their prescription drugs correctly. To say nothing of teenagers not handling heavy equipment (cars on the highway) correctly.
Less than 24 hours after people died in Boston, the ban pressure cooker jokes started
Are you really that obtuse? People make satirical comments like that because they're appalled that less than 24 hours after an event like Newtown, idiots start proposing meaningless new restraints on law abiding people on matters that will have absolutely no impact on the sort of crime committed. The "jokes" are comments about those people and their irrational non-sequitor urges to pass prior-restraint laws impacting only the people who obey them while ignoring the criminals who are - statistically - the real problem.
Of course you know that, anonymous coward, and you're just trolling.
No, a gun is made to shoot whatever it's designed to shoot out of its barrel. I own guns that are essentially useless for anything other than breaking clay pigeons. I also own a gun that stopped a violent, drug-addled guy from beating down our door in the middle of the night while we waited 20 minutes for the cops to show up. He was nuts, but not so nuts that looking at the muzzle of the gun didn't make him settle right down. Hey, look, no killing! Not by me or by him, despite his hollering that that was exactly what he was going to do. In that case a gun was made and used to stop violence. Which happens hundreds of thousands of times a year - far more than they are used by violent people to hurt anyone.
Actually, a "you don't get to buy assault weapons if you live with a crazy person" rule would have stopped the owner from getting those guns.
No, it wouldn't have. Because her son wasn't (in legal, you've-been-committed-against-your-will sorta ways) a crazy person.
I'll agree it would be better to do the whole thing in one step
By "the whole thing," I presume you mean confiscation, right?
So: vastly more people are killed every year with baseball bats and pipes than are the dozens killed with rifles (and that's ALL kinds of rifles, including single-shot-muzzleloaders). Why not include the really dangerous stuff, like baseball bats, in your "whole thing?" Please be specific.
And shooting people is already listed in a thousand different ways as illegal. Banning the objects to prevent what actions some few people might take is exactly what breathless politicians are screaming for. They know it's meaningless, and you know it's meaningless. Just like banning the objects from which ricin is made is meaningless.
Take your failed attempts at political satire...
The satire is all you, buddy. You just don't realize it.
If we could create legislation that could keep unstable people from bombs, we would. Since we can with guns, we will.
Really? The owner of the guns in the CT killings would have passed any of the newly proposed background checks. She owned the guns legally. They were stolen from her by someone not allowed to have the, who killed her before moving on to kill other people and himself. Which restraint on the 2nd being tossed around would have prevented that crazy guy from being crazy? Please be specific. Thanks.
You joke, but people who get at least some news coverage are already saying that the Boston bombings are just more proof that the 2nd amendment has to go. It's amazing that there are brains out there that "work" that way.
Obviously we must ban all Assault Beans. Even though castor beans aren't even really legumes at all. All that matters is that word "bean" is used, which qualifies them as Assault Beans.
Just because the Lima Bean ban back in the 1990's didn't reduce the number of assault bean attacks doesn't mean that a properly configured law - which we'll have to pass in order to find out what's really in it, of course - won't save "at least one life."
Next, we'll have to focus on deaths related to soccer and other Assault Sports. I'm looking at you, Kayaking.
Wow, Google is serving you ads on your own mail server? Oh, You mean they're serving you ads while you're using their huge infrastructure for free. How dare they!
some corporation indexes every words that comes out of your fingers
So you create a document and save it on your local hard disk, or send it in an email from your mail server to someone else's mail server, and Google is indexing it anyway? How? Oh, you mean words you type out and put on public display on the internet. How dare they!
Can't help but wonder if that insufferable busy-body, Dirk Pitt, has managed to get under foot in the work you do. Sure, he's usually saving the world from man-made catastrophes and evil plots and whatnot, but he seems to leave a huge wake behind him. Just wondering if NUMA's budget wouldn't be better spent farming out more of their work to you guys at Woods Hole, which would also keep him from wrecking an endless parade of irreplaceable classic cars, boats, and aircraft.
Piracy is a naval thing where people from one boat invade another
You're forgetting (deliberately, of course - a post as shrill as yours is always disingenuous) that the term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright violation for over 400 years. The reason everyone who hears that word used in this context knows exactly what it means is because it's been used in that context for longer than a whole lot of other commonly used words have existed. Stamping your feet and being mad that people are still using the word today the way they used it four centuries ago is pretty silly. Almost as silly as calling ripping off someone's creative work to avoid spending a couple of bucks "sharing."
Yay, ain't it nice living in a binary world? Black and white's all we need.
Asserting that SK deserves being attacked is exactly such a binary position. They either do deserve to be attacked, or they do not. Tap-dancing around that is just BS.
Slashdot Mirror
a few billion living in poverty
Not to mention that the few billion living in today's poverty live WAY better than those in poverty even a couple of centuries ago.
I get most of my food at the farmers market
How's that February local produce working out for you? Or are you talking about a "farmer's market" that has stuff brought in from thousands of miles away? Or is it possible you're talking about a region with a climate that isn't like many other places?
Paying for a recording of a concert, that the person who made the recording is happy to share, is what they dislike.
They also seem to believe that when an artist offers up the work they've just spent years creating via a business model that does include buying a copy of it, that if they don't feel like paying for that copy, it's OK to just rip it off to show that artist how wrong headed they are. If all of those "freetards" had the intellectual integrity to not consume the work produced by people whom they judge evil for supporting the copyright system, then I'd have some sympathy. But people rip stuff off because they want it and don't feel like doing business with the work's creator on the terms offered. Think an artist is a fool or a jackass for asking a price for their recordings? Walk away and don't support them. But this is rarely about judging the artist's decisions about how to pay for years worth of studio work - this is mostly about jerks ripping off stuff they want because they can.
Except for when you're there in person. Then his information does not flow freely.
Isn't that what happened/is happening in Gitmo?
No. None of them have been burned alive, and they all have lawyers. And in many cases, we'd love to get rid of them, but can't find a country that will take them back. In other cases, they are more than just simple criminals, their associates continue in a deliberate attempt to kill people, and the means by which they were apprehended are in some cases extremely delicate. Should the administration not have run back and forth across the legal street like a squirrel in front of traffic while trying to decide whether to use a court in NY, then drop criminal charges, then re-instate military charges, and whatnot? Sure. But that's not the same as a lynch mob.
amateurs built the Ark
And if we need an imaginary ride in an imaginary boat, we can ask them to do it again.
Since nobody can be as incapable of parsing the written word as you're pretending to be, it's clearer now that you're just a kid trolling. Should have spotted it sooner, and not wasted time seeing if there was some way for you to recognize your own mixed premises, hypocrisy, double standards, and deliberate irrationality. Whew! Just a troll. This all makes more sense, now.
He "stole" those guns in the exact same way he "stole" eggs and orange juice from her every morning when he ate breakfast.
No, he was legally prohibited from using them without her active supervision. It's like a 15-year-old taking dad's car out on the road. It's by definition illegal possession/use.
Yes, because it's really important to gain access to your dead family member's firearms ASAP.
Or, perhaps he's neither he nor his brother are idiots, and realize that people tend to keep important legal documents like wills and such in the same safe as their guns. Because most people don't need more than one safe. And yeah, one a family member dies, it's often pretty important to be able to get to their personal papers. You actually need someone to explain this to you?
When you hear a gun shot, that bad guy already has shot someone.
Or missed someone. Why do make this assumption?
So that dead someone likely had a gun like you.
Why? Criminals kill unarmed people all the time. How do you come to the conclusion that a shot you hear in the distance means either of the things you just said? For all you know, the criminal tried to shoot out a door deadbolt, or shot a dog. Or was nervous and bad at handling a gun, and shot himself in the foot while climbing through a window.
That you are so mad and get your own gun to confront the bad guy instead of running away is your problem ...
How many doors do you have to your bedroom or office? What if your kids are asleep down the hall from you? You're right. Probably better to jump out the window and let the kids fend for themselves. Home invasions that end in rapes and murders and crime-scene-covering arson definitely go more smoothly when people follow your suggestions. You are super smart, obviously.
Really? It's routine news. Regardless, check out studies done by Florida State University, the Cato Institute, and countless others. Extremely conservative estimates put crimes stopped by the brandishing (not firing) of a gun to be well over 100,000 per year - with common estimates being well over half a million. Just the numbers that involve actually shooting someone in self defense eclipse shootings of the kind most people call "gun violence" in the murderous sense. Obviously, "burglar run off by armed homeowner" rarely makes the news, let alone typical stats-keeping at the normal law enforcement level. My own incident never got that far, it just worked, and that's all I cared about. Several similar incidents that I've witnessed, same story. But Dr. Kleck's study at FSU puts the number between 800,000 and 2,500,000 per year.
Let's say he's overestimating by a factor of four. It's still wildly more than the number of non-accidental shootings. And accidental shootings (as a fraction of gun ownership) is still smaller than the number of accidental deaths from, say, people not handling their prescription drugs correctly. To say nothing of teenagers not handling heavy equipment (cars on the highway) correctly.
Less than 24 hours after people died in Boston, the ban pressure cooker jokes started
Are you really that obtuse? People make satirical comments like that because they're appalled that less than 24 hours after an event like Newtown, idiots start proposing meaningless new restraints on law abiding people on matters that will have absolutely no impact on the sort of crime committed. The "jokes" are comments about those people and their irrational non-sequitor urges to pass prior-restraint laws impacting only the people who obey them while ignoring the criminals who are - statistically - the real problem.
Of course you know that, anonymous coward, and you're just trolling.
A gun is made for killing.
No, a gun is made to shoot whatever it's designed to shoot out of its barrel. I own guns that are essentially useless for anything other than breaking clay pigeons. I also own a gun that stopped a violent, drug-addled guy from beating down our door in the middle of the night while we waited 20 minutes for the cops to show up. He was nuts, but not so nuts that looking at the muzzle of the gun didn't make him settle right down. Hey, look, no killing! Not by me or by him, despite his hollering that that was exactly what he was going to do. In that case a gun was made and used to stop violence. Which happens hundreds of thousands of times a year - far more than they are used by violent people to hurt anyone.
Actually, a "you don't get to buy assault weapons if you live with a crazy person" rule would have stopped the owner from getting those guns.
No, it wouldn't have. Because her son wasn't (in legal, you've-been-committed-against-your-will sorta ways) a crazy person.
I'll agree it would be better to do the whole thing in one step
By "the whole thing," I presume you mean confiscation, right?
So: vastly more people are killed every year with baseball bats and pipes than are the dozens killed with rifles (and that's ALL kinds of rifles, including single-shot-muzzleloaders). Why not include the really dangerous stuff, like baseball bats, in your "whole thing?" Please be specific.
you're completely full of shit
Really? Here's a typical Hollywood type on the subject:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/actor-blames-boston-attack-on-gun-culture-2nd-amendment-must-go/
But ricin is a banned substance, right?
Right, just like shooting people is a banned act.
You're a moron, ricin is listed ...
And shooting people is already listed in a thousand different ways as illegal. Banning the objects to prevent what actions some few people might take is exactly what breathless politicians are screaming for. They know it's meaningless, and you know it's meaningless. Just like banning the objects from which ricin is made is meaningless.
Take your failed attempts at political satire...
The satire is all you, buddy. You just don't realize it.
If we could create legislation that could keep unstable people from bombs, we would. Since we can with guns, we will.
Really? The owner of the guns in the CT killings would have passed any of the newly proposed background checks. She owned the guns legally. They were stolen from her by someone not allowed to have the, who killed her before moving on to kill other people and himself. Which restraint on the 2nd being tossed around would have prevented that crazy guy from being crazy? Please be specific. Thanks.
You joke, but people who get at least some news coverage are already saying that the Boston bombings are just more proof that the 2nd amendment has to go. It's amazing that there are brains out there that "work" that way.
Obviously we must ban all Assault Beans. Even though castor beans aren't even really legumes at all. All that matters is that word "bean" is used, which qualifies them as Assault Beans.
Just because the Lima Bean ban back in the 1990's didn't reduce the number of assault bean attacks doesn't mean that a properly configured law - which we'll have to pass in order to find out what's really in it, of course - won't save "at least one life."
Next, we'll have to focus on deaths related to soccer and other Assault Sports. I'm looking at you, Kayaking.
I can't say that we are even worth saving.
Why are you still typing when you could be jumping off a cliff and improving the world just a bit?
searches your emails to serve you ads
Wow, Google is serving you ads on your own mail server? Oh, You mean they're serving you ads while you're using their huge infrastructure for free. How dare they!
some corporation indexes every words that comes out of your fingers
So you create a document and save it on your local hard disk, or send it in an email from your mail server to someone else's mail server, and Google is indexing it anyway? How? Oh, you mean words you type out and put on public display on the internet. How dare they!
Can't help but wonder if that insufferable busy-body, Dirk Pitt, has managed to get under foot in the work you do. Sure, he's usually saving the world from man-made catastrophes and evil plots and whatnot, but he seems to leave a huge wake behind him. Just wondering if NUMA's budget wouldn't be better spent farming out more of their work to you guys at Woods Hole, which would also keep him from wrecking an endless parade of irreplaceable classic cars, boats, and aircraft.
Piracy is a naval thing where people from one boat invade another
You're forgetting (deliberately, of course - a post as shrill as yours is always disingenuous) that the term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright violation for over 400 years. The reason everyone who hears that word used in this context knows exactly what it means is because it's been used in that context for longer than a whole lot of other commonly used words have existed. Stamping your feet and being mad that people are still using the word today the way they used it four centuries ago is pretty silly. Almost as silly as calling ripping off someone's creative work to avoid spending a couple of bucks "sharing."
Yay, ain't it nice living in a binary world? Black and white's all we need.
Asserting that SK deserves being attacked is exactly such a binary position. They either do deserve to be attacked, or they do not. Tap-dancing around that is just BS.