Believe what you will. My purpose was to provide explicit information and insight. Humor can provide insight, and serve as a power means of social criticism. The problem when dealing with communism is that the fans of communism will ignore or reject the joke, or even take it as serious when it is subtle. By the way - did you notice that post's moderation? 50% Interesting, 50% Funny. If you think that quip revealed more about the true nature of communist regimes than my post, you are a person of rare insight.
I accomplished my purpose with my post, and I hope you enjoyed the joke.
One last thing: The Soviets really did use real missiles in their parades, just without the payload. Western intelligence agencies eagerly awaited each years military parade for the purpose of intelligence gathering.
Soviet R-12 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (NATO reporting name: SS-4) on parade in Red Square. The CIA used this photo as a reference point when identifying the deployment of this type of missile to Cuba. Photo Credit: CIA/National Security Archive.
Others record that America declared war on Germany for the simple reason that Germany had already declared war on America after America had sat out a couple of years of war so they could make money.
That is simply false. The United States stayed out of the war because it was deeply isolationist and anti-war at the time (watch 23:08 to 25:13), and wasn't party to any of the treaties that resulted in the war. (Interesting, isn't it? Many in Europe complain that the US didn't enter WW2 soon enough, but now complain when the US gets involved in the conflicts of today. A simple question of whose ox is being gored? )
Look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth?
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . .
Whom do you think the Soviet and Chinese communists use? You may recall that they were both part of a club that treated Christians poorly? China still is.
... though their 'not-launching-the-missiles' capabilities might be a problem.
I think Christians understand that the end of the world is in God's hands, not man's. Trying to start it themselves would seem to be a sin.
“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. -- Mark 13:32
This is in contrast to the Iranian branch of Shia Islam (the Iraqi branch is distinct) where many believe they can cause enough chaos in the world to bring the return of the Hidden Imam.
Read this post, as I suggested. If it still seems unclear, I'll see if I can provide more detail. And you save you a little work - you almost certainly have one or more genuine communist parties in your country, and communists read Slashdot.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Peragrin's post pegged mine.
The problem is that there are still people that either believe what that post said, or something close enough that it doesn't matter. There are still communists and advocates for communism worldwide, including here on Slashdot. Even North Korea has defenders around the world. The United States itself has a number of active communist parties - Americans just don't let them anywhere near power when they understand that is who it is. (Europeans often claim that the United States has no true left despite the evidence.)
Why do you think I included that last section? Even when they understand that there was a little bit of a problem with the way former communist governments acted, they hedge that "no true communist government" has ever existed, so people need to keep on trying to build communist utopias. Eventually people will forget and it will happen again. People around the world are hypervigilant over fascist parties, but communists get a pass despite their far bloodier record.
Nobody uses sarcasm, especially in writing - since it lacks the typical vocal cues, to transmit the knowledge that a particular substance is poisonous, and that if ingested it will kill you, hence my post. Until Slashdot implements the [sarcasm] tag, it is best to be direct and explicit about something so toxic that so many are drawn to like moths to a flame. Communism is a form of mind trap.
Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors.
It's nice that people can still believe fairytales, but not so nice when they involve the "peaceful" nature of communism. There is a little history you left out, such as:
The Soviet suppression of the workers strike in East Germany in 1953, the Soviet invasion to put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956, the Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush the "Prague Spring - Socialism with a Human Face," and the Soviet invasion of communist Afghanistan.
On December 27, 1979, under cover of an ongoing Soviet military buildup, heavily-armed elements of a Soviet airborne brigade were airlifted into Kabul, Afghanistan, to violently overthrow the regime of President Hafizollah Amin. Within hours after the beginning of this Trojan Horse-type operation, Soviet troops had overwhelmed the elite presidential guard, captured Amin, executed him along with several members of his family for crimes against the people and seized control of the capital.
Within days Soviet armor columns were fanning out across Afghani stan to occupy major population centers, airbases and strategic lines of com munication.
A State Department memorandum of conversation, published here for the first time, recounts one of the more extraordinary moments in Cold War history--a KGB officer's query about the U.S. reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.
The extraordinary assertion, made in a publication sanctioned by China's ruling Communist Party, suggests that the world came perilously close to nuclear war just seven years after the Cuban missile crisis.
Liu Chenshan, the author of a series of articles that chronicle the five times China has faced a nuclear threat since 1949, wrote that the most serious threat came in 1969 at the height of a bitter border dispute between Moscow and Beijing that left more than one thousand people dead on both sides.
He said Soviet diplomats warned Washington of Moscow's plans "to wipe out the Chinese threat and get rid of this modern adventurer," with a nuclear strike, asking the US to remain neutral.
But, he says, Washington told Moscow the United States would not stand idly by but launch its own nuclear attack against the Soviet Union if it attacked China, loosing nuclear missiles at 130 Soviet cities. The threat worked, he added, and made Moscow think twice, while forcing the two countries to regulate their border dispute at the negotiating table
It is fairly common to see electrical engineers specialize as either design or test engineers, in function if not career. But as far as I've seen, they still have the same academic training. I'm not sure that software would need to be done differently, at least at the undergrad level. Although I do think that having more course work available on testing would be a good thing.
So how good do you rate your chances of beating to death, a fleeing victim who is 10 feets away from you, with just a cricket bat, wrench or tire iron?
The typical thug has a pretty good chance of beating to death a fleeing vicitm that is 10 feet away, initially, especially if they are old or handicapped. Walk with a cane? Wham! In a wheelchair? Wham! 67 years old? Wham!
Two or three thugs and one victim? Wham! That thug might even just be faster than you are. Wham! Oh, no! You slipped in the mud. Wham!
So. . . are you planning to be young and healthy forever? I assume so. Don't be surprised if it doesn't turn out that way.
Also, If you did NOT have guns being sold like chewing gum everyplace
However, when I lived in the US I was shot at multiple times. Usually because some idiot was shooting downhill or mistook me getting off the school bus for a dear and only occasionally by our local lunatic that sat on his back porch shooting at anything that moved. Oh, and once or twice because I was "a damn hippie," but fortunately they were too drunk to hit the broad side of a barn.
I think you are probably mistaken. If there was shooting going on, I doubt it was directed at you. Most likely it would have been aimed at the trolls that seem to be circling you. Trolls used to be the big targets before zombies came along.
If you had bothered to read Murder by Numbers you would have a more useful understanding. Many American states have murder rates below common European rates, and European Americans tends to commit murder at rates typical for other Europeans. And the United States tends to have less violent crime than Europe. So yes, you probably did waste your time going to Wikipedia instead.
I would rather get killed by something i had a chance of defending myself against than something killing me instantly.
Two points -
1. Most people shot by pistols recover if given medical care.
2. Your comment comes to the heart of the difference on this issue: You would rather get killed than have a weapon to defend yourself.
So, yes, it is comforting knowing that punks in dark alleys are not carrying guns.
When you are old and infirm, they will still be there with clubs and knives, and you will be unarmed and at their "mercy." You won't have the chance that these people do, as things stand, and neither will your friends and loved ones. All the advantages accrue to the thugs. What a cruel thing.
Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita . . .
Do you see the difference?
Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.
Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.
I'm afraid you're the one slinging bull. If you read the thread you will see that I responded to a gun control thread - that is what started the thread. There were posts advocating gun control - several of them - before I even posted. They were moderated up, and still are. I didn't try to hijack anything. The only thing I did was offer a contrary opinion backed by data. That is why it was modded down. If you can't see that, you either didn't read the thread, or are clueless, or simply agree with the outcome. But don't try to pretend it is anything but what it is - moderation based on intolerance of opposing viewpoints.
I don't believe there's anyone who reads Slashdot who could also read "American Thinker" without laughing out loud.
Certainly nobody with your immaculate progressive credentials.
I would be curious to know if you bothered to read it? There is a section in there with implications for the disagreeable problem your hometown has at the moment with gun violence.
The fact that you cite an "American Thinker" article makes me think you must have just copy-pasted that mess of misleading and out-and-out phony articles.
No, collected them myself over time actually, and inserted them individually into the post. By "phony" I assume you mean facts that I disagree with?
And the predicted outcome arrived before I even finished posting reply to the AC.
My post - score 0 - off-topic. Parent post establishing gun control topic and advocating for it is untouched at 2. Post in same thread advocating gun control, voter redistricting, and implicitly slamming Republicans and gun manufacturers is +3. Post in same thread by AC slamming gun industry is at +1.
This isn't about being "off-topic", it is simple viewpoint discrimination. Any topic is fine, you just can't hold unpopular views supported by facts contrary to popular prejudices. Rather progressive I would say. So, when will the next story on "anti-science Texas" be posted?
Try reading the comment to which I was responding. Is that too much to ask for? I notice you didn't complain about that. Nor did you apparently complain about this comment above:
Not really. All they need is to fix voting districts which Republicans created to win House despite popular vote going to Democrats and then it's over for gun lovers. Or not game over, because 99% of them current breed of laws won't impact any way at all. Just their pride will be hurt - and arm manufacturers profit.
Nor did you reply to the gun control comment below this one. It isn't going "off topic," despite the fact that I was responding to an established topic thread, that appears to bother you. Advocating gun control is fine. Sniping at gun owners, the NRA, and Republicans is fine. It is interjecting facts into the discussion that you apparently find disagreeable. Is it because the facts are against your position? Can't we all just agree to be wrong together?
As to winning debates - facts seem to be far too rarely considered in moderation or "winning" debates on Slashdot. After all, the mob is Slashdot.* Popular prejudices often rule even if they are wrong. I expect you will ultimately be pleased with the moderation of my comment, I've come to expect it. Nonetheless, the facts should be presented for people to consider even if it displeases you. People can decide for themselves.
Gracchus: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it's the sand of the coliseum. He'll bring them death - and they will love him for it.
Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.
The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . ..
Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.
Scramjets have a long and active development history in the United States. On the basis of theoretical studies started in the 1940s, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and NASA began developing scramjet engines in the late 1950s. Since then, many hydrogenand hydrocarbon-fueled engine programs have helped scramjet technology evolve to its current state. The most influential of these efforts was NASA’s National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, established in 1986 to develop a vehicle with speed greater than Mach 15 and horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities. The program ended in 1993, but the original NASP engine design, significantly modified by NASA, provided the foundation for the power plant used during the X-43A’s recent flight.
Fourth, you diminish yourself when you associate yourself with Alex Belits' bile filled, historically illiterate, diatribes.
Don't feel too cocky yet, my American friend. The difference between America and China is that China doesn't make the headlines with such a military/scientific/technical achievement. When time will come, they'll show up..
Although it is possible they'll invent their own - assuming they feel a need to have it - the more likely outcome is they'll wait till it is perfected by the US and then use espionage to steal the design and make their own copy. In the unlikely event that the US is able to foil the Chinese attempt at stealing the design, the Russians will probably build their own at some point and the Chinese will steal it from them. It is an old pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe what you will. My purpose was to provide explicit information and insight. Humor can provide insight, and serve as a power means of social criticism. The problem when dealing with communism is that the fans of communism will ignore or reject the joke, or even take it as serious when it is subtle. By the way - did you notice that post's moderation? 50% Interesting, 50% Funny. If you think that quip revealed more about the true nature of communist regimes than my post, you are a person of rare insight.
I accomplished my purpose with my post, and I hope you enjoyed the joke.
One last thing: The Soviets really did use real missiles in their parades, just without the payload. Western intelligence agencies eagerly awaited each years military parade for the purpose of intelligence gathering.
Washington Looks Back at the Cuban Missile Crisis, Part 1
Soviet R-12 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (NATO reporting name: SS-4) on parade in Red Square. The CIA used this photo as a reference point when identifying the deployment of this type of missile to Cuba. Photo Credit: CIA/National Security Archive.
Cheers
Assuming it is the same question in your mind, maybe this.
Others record that America declared war on Germany for the simple reason that Germany had already declared war on America after America had sat out a couple of years of war so they could make money.
That is simply false. The United States stayed out of the war because it was deeply isolationist and anti-war at the time (watch 23:08 to 25:13), and wasn't party to any of the treaties that resulted in the war. (Interesting, isn't it? Many in Europe complain that the US didn't enter WW2 soon enough, but now complain when the US gets involved in the conflicts of today. A simple question of whose ox is being gored? )
Look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth?
What's a little debt between friends?
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . .
Whom do you think the Soviet and Chinese communists use? You may recall that they were both part of a club that treated Christians poorly? China still is.
... though their 'not-launching-the-missiles' capabilities might be a problem.
I think Christians understand that the end of the world is in God's hands, not man's. Trying to start it themselves would seem to be a sin.
“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. -- Mark 13:32
This is in contrast to the Iranian branch of Shia Islam (the Iraqi branch is distinct) where many believe they can cause enough chaos in the world to bring the return of the Hidden Imam.
'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
Ahmadinejad: Chávez Will Rise Again with Jesus and the Hidden Imam
I get the impression you might be a little fixated.
Read this post, as I suggested. If it still seems unclear, I'll see if I can provide more detail. And you save you a little work - you almost certainly have one or more genuine communist parties in your country, and communists read Slashdot.
First link should be: SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
There need to be t-shirts printed with this picture of Che instead of the typical one used.
Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him
See above - especially if you still have active communist parties in your country - otherwise you have a leak.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Peragrin's post pegged mine.
The problem is that there are still people that either believe what that post said, or something close enough that it doesn't matter. There are still communists and advocates for communism worldwide, including here on Slashdot. Even North Korea has defenders around the world. The United States itself has a number of active communist parties - Americans just don't let them anywhere near power when they understand that is who it is. (Europeans often claim that the United States has no true left despite the evidence.)
SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
Communists hijacking 'occupy wall street' movement?
Why do you think I included that last section? Even when they understand that there was a little bit of a problem with the way former communist governments acted, they hedge that "no true communist government" has ever existed, so people need to keep on trying to build communist utopias. Eventually people will forget and it will happen again. People around the world are hypervigilant over fascist parties, but communists get a pass despite their far bloodier record.
Nobody uses sarcasm, especially in writing - since it lacks the typical vocal cues, to transmit the knowledge that a particular substance is poisonous, and that if ingested it will kill you, hence my post. Until Slashdot implements the [sarcasm] tag, it is best to be direct and explicit about something so toxic that so many are drawn to like moths to a flame. Communism is a form of mind trap.
Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors.
It's nice that people can still believe fairytales, but not so nice when they involve the "peaceful" nature of communism. There is a little history you left out, such as:
The Soviet suppression of the workers strike in East Germany in 1953, the Soviet invasion to put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956, the Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush the "Prague Spring - Socialism with a Human Face," and the Soviet invasion of communist Afghanistan.
The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
On December 27, 1979, under cover of an ongoing Soviet military buildup, heavily-armed elements of a Soviet airborne brigade were airlifted into Kabul, Afghanistan, to violently overthrow the regime of President Hafizollah Amin. Within hours after the beginning of this Trojan Horse-type operation, Soviet troops had overwhelmed the elite presidential guard, captured Amin, executed him along with several members of his family for crimes against the people and seized control of the capital.
Within days Soviet armor columns were fanning out across Afghani stan to occupy major population centers, airbases and strategic lines of com munication.
Uprising in East Germany, 1953 ; In Eastern Germany, 1953 Uprising Is Remembered
The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents
Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968
Added bonus: 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état
The Chinese-Soviet border war of 1969 very neary went nuclear:
The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict, 1969: U.S. Reactions and Diplomatic Maneuvers
A State Department memorandum of conversation, published here for the first time, recounts one of the more extraordinary moments in Cold War history--a KGB officer's query about the U.S. reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969
The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.
The extraordinary assertion, made in a publication sanctioned by China's ruling Communist Party, suggests that the world came perilously close to nuclear war just seven years after the Cuban missile crisis.
Liu Chenshan, the author of a series of articles that chronicle the five times China has faced a nuclear threat since 1949, wrote that the most serious threat came in 1969 at the height of a bitter border dispute between Moscow and Beijing that left more than one thousand people dead on both sides.
He said Soviet diplomats warned Washington of Moscow's plans "to wipe out the Chinese threat and get rid of this modern adventurer," with a nuclear strike, asking the US to remain neutral.
But, he says, Washington told Moscow the United States would not stand idly by but launch its own nuclear attack against the Soviet Union if it attacked China, loosing nuclear missiles at 130 Soviet cities. The threat worked, he added, and made Moscow think twice, while forcing the two countries to regulate their border dispute at the negotiating table
How are things looking for the Glocks and the police service weapons? They weren't excluded from the law, so they are illegal too in New York.
It is fairly common to see electrical engineers specialize as either design or test engineers, in function if not career. But as far as I've seen, they still have the same academic training. I'm not sure that software would need to be done differently, at least at the undergrad level. Although I do think that having more course work available on testing would be a good thing.
So how good do you rate your chances of beating to death, a fleeing victim who is 10 feets away from you, with just a cricket bat, wrench or tire iron?
The typical thug has a pretty good chance of beating to death a fleeing vicitm that is 10 feet away, initially, especially if they are old or handicapped. Walk with a cane? Wham! In a wheelchair? Wham! 67 years old? Wham!
Two or three thugs and one victim? Wham! That thug might even just be faster than you are. Wham! Oh, no! You slipped in the mud. Wham!
So. . . are you planning to be young and healthy forever? I assume so. Don't be surprised if it doesn't turn out that way.
Also, If you did NOT have guns being sold like chewing gum everyplace
You know that doesn't really happen, right?
However, when I lived in the US I was shot at multiple times. Usually because some idiot was shooting downhill or mistook me getting off the school bus for a dear and only occasionally by our local lunatic that sat on his back porch shooting at anything that moved. Oh, and once or twice because I was "a damn hippie," but fortunately they were too drunk to hit the broad side of a barn.
I think you are probably mistaken. If there was shooting going on, I doubt it was directed at you. Most likely it would have been aimed at the trolls that seem to be circling you. Trolls used to be the big targets before zombies came along.
If you had bothered to read Murder by Numbers you would have a more useful understanding. Many American states have murder rates below common European rates, and European Americans tends to commit murder at rates typical for other Europeans. And the United States tends to have less violent crime than Europe. So yes, you probably did waste your time going to Wikipedia instead.
I would rather get killed by something i had a chance of defending myself against than something killing me instantly.
Two points -
1. Most people shot by pistols recover if given medical care.
2. Your comment comes to the heart of the difference on this issue: You would rather get killed than have a weapon to defend yourself.
So, yes, it is comforting knowing that punks in dark alleys are not carrying guns.
When you are old and infirm, they will still be there with clubs and knives, and you will be unarmed and at their "mercy." You won't have the chance that these people do, as things stand, and neither will your friends and loved ones. All the advantages accrue to the thugs. What a cruel thing.
80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
And this is probably why: Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
No doubt there are also many cases of old men and women being shot by attackers, probably sometimes with their own gun.
I expect this sort of thing is quite impossible in your mind.
80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
If only there was more to go on.
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Now, watch this: The rate of firearm-related deaths per capita . . .
Do you see the difference?
Indeed I do. You pulled out that old canard that people shot dead are more dead* than people beaten to death with cricket bats, wrenches, or tire irons, or stabbed to death. You try to divert the question from dead bodies to one of "dead bodies with a bullet in them." Not going to work I'm afraid. Now, watch this. Looking beyond murder, to total violence - the UK, Australia, and much of Europe have more violent crime than the US. Even when it comes to murder, there are a number of European contries with higher rates. This is an interesting general article.
Murder by Numbers
Some of the articles I listed address the very interesting question of avoiding being killed to begin with by means of effective self-defense. Did you know that even old men, women, and the infirm have used firearms to protect themselves against thugs, and gangs? When you deny them the right to arm themselves they become victims. Objectively, gun control is pro-thug.
80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder
*Or was it their souls go straight to hell? I forget.
I'm afraid you're the one slinging bull. If you read the thread you will see that I responded to a gun control thread - that is what started the thread. There were posts advocating gun control - several of them - before I even posted. They were moderated up, and still are. I didn't try to hijack anything. The only thing I did was offer a contrary opinion backed by data. That is why it was modded down. If you can't see that, you either didn't read the thread, or are clueless, or simply agree with the outcome. But don't try to pretend it is anything but what it is - moderation based on intolerance of opposing viewpoints.
I don't believe there's anyone who reads Slashdot who could also read "American Thinker" without laughing out loud.
Certainly nobody with your immaculate progressive credentials.
I would be curious to know if you bothered to read it? There is a section in there with implications for the disagreeable problem your hometown has at the moment with gun violence.
The fact that you cite an "American Thinker" article makes me think you must have just copy-pasted that mess of misleading and out-and-out phony articles.
No, collected them myself over time actually, and inserted them individually into the post. By "phony" I assume you mean facts that I disagree with?
And the predicted outcome arrived before I even finished posting reply to the AC.
My post - score 0 - off-topic.
Parent post establishing gun control topic and advocating for it is untouched at 2.
Post in same thread advocating gun control, voter redistricting, and implicitly slamming Republicans and gun manufacturers is +3.
Post in same thread by AC slamming gun industry is at +1.
This isn't about being "off-topic", it is simple viewpoint discrimination. Any topic is fine, you just can't hold unpopular views supported by facts contrary to popular prejudices. Rather progressive I would say. So, when will the next story on "anti-science Texas" be posted?
Try reading the comment to which I was responding. Is that too much to ask for? I notice you didn't complain about that. Nor did you apparently complain about this comment above:
Nor did you reply to the gun control comment below this one. It isn't going "off topic," despite the fact that I was responding to an established topic thread, that appears to bother you. Advocating gun control is fine. Sniping at gun owners, the NRA, and Republicans is fine. It is interjecting facts into the discussion that you apparently find disagreeable. Is it because the facts are against your position? Can't we all just agree to be wrong together?
As to winning debates - facts seem to be far too rarely considered in moderation or "winning" debates on Slashdot. After all, the mob is Slashdot.* Popular prejudices often rule even if they are wrong. I expect you will ultimately be pleased with the moderation of my comment, I've come to expect it. Nonetheless, the facts should be presented for people to consider even if it displeases you. People can decide for themselves.
Although the new technology may have an impact, it appears unlikely there will be significantly more restrictive gun control laws passed at the Federal level in the US. The public and the facts are against it overall. In various states, such as New York, Colorado, and California, there have been a number of new, highly restrictive laws passed, that at least in some cases are unpopular, are opposed by the police, and are unlikely to survive challenges in court. The brilliant governor in New York managed to get a law passed that outlawed even police weapons - New York is in the best of hands although California is a contender as well.
The idea that ordinary citizens can't protect themselves with guns is ridiculous.
Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI
What about the murder rate?
Murder by Numbers
Gun control's general effect on crime?
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
Crime soared with Mass. gun law
England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .
Political support for more restrictive nation gun control measures in the US has fallen.
USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%
During a manhunt, 69 percent of voters want a gun
NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S
Dems push gun control agenda in DC, but not in battleground states
Four things. First, Professor Ray Stalker is indeed a credit to Australia and I look forward to his continued success.
Second, the article is about the successful test of a US Air Force test vehicle. They are entitled to celebrate their success.
Third, your history is a bit off.
Scramjets integrate air and space
Scramjets have a long and active development history in the United States. On the basis of theoretical studies started in the 1940s, the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and NASA began developing scramjet engines in the late 1950s. Since then, many hydrogenand hydrocarbon-fueled engine programs have helped scramjet technology evolve to its current state. The most influential of these efforts was NASA’s National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, established in 1986 to develop a vehicle with speed greater than Mach 15 and horizontal takeoff and landing capabilities. The program ended in 1993, but the original NASP engine design, significantly modified by NASA, provided the foundation for the power plant used during the X-43A’s recent flight.
Fourth, you diminish yourself when you associate yourself with Alex Belits' bile filled, historically illiterate, diatribes.
Don't feel too cocky yet, my American friend. The difference between America and China is that China doesn't make the headlines with such a military/scientific/technical achievement. When time will come, they'll show up..
Although it is possible they'll invent their own - assuming they feel a need to have it - the more likely outcome is they'll wait till it is perfected by the US and then use espionage to steal the design and make their own copy. In the unlikely event that the US is able to foil the Chinese attempt at stealing the design, the Russians will probably build their own at some point and the Chinese will steal it from them. It is an old pattern.
China also has more than 3,000 front companies in the U.S. “for the sole purpose of acquiring our technology,” . . .
Inside the Chinese Boom in Corporate Espionage
Chinese Army Directing Cyber Espionage Against Western Businesses
China military unit 'behind prolific hacking'
The China Problem