It's more that we might as well take out the low hanging fruit before we move to the more reasonable weapons. Rifles don't really have a use in civilian hands and we still have hundreds of murders caused by them. We've forced car companies into recalls over fewer deaths.
There's now http://mbeta.slashdot.org/ which looks pretty spiffy on mobile devices and even validates (except for some code strangely there to handle IE)
Interestingly, any study that contradicts the NRA's "guns are perfect" theology tends to be buried and discredited no matter how accurate it is. When the (I think) FDA department of injuries found that households with guns were less safe, the NRA lobbied to have the department defunded because they didn't think they should be doing research like that.
If the government wants to kill/imprison you or take your gun away, they're going to do it. You can't fight off the government, just look at what's happened to the nut jobs that have tried. There was the waco seige where the government overpowered the fanatics in the 90s, even recently there was a guy that burned down his house and hid in a bunker in the wood he had built until a swat team essentially blew it up.
We're not talking about serial killers here - the people doing these mass shootings aren't the type to plan through their actions and figure out the correct brands of cleaning components, they went to grab a gun from their local gun show and pop in a magazine with as many bullets as possible.
If there are a few people around hiding behind walls or barricades, 1.5 seconds could be enough time to rush a shooter and interrupt his reloading.
You seem to be ignoring the small number of guns involved in this. Clearly the FFLs ARE selling the guns since tens of thousands are being bought and trafficked to Mexico. As any gun nut will tell you, restricting gun sales has no effect on gun crime, therefore, the opposite is also true and making it easier for criminals to get guns also has no effect on gun crime.
Not actually true, but good try. The scandal in Fast and Furious wasn't that the US was providing the guns, it was that the US lost track of the guns. The US knew that the guns were being trafficked to Mexico, but due to our ridiculous gun laws, it's actually legal for someone to buy a couple dozen AR-15s at once and then just take them over by the border where they get smuggled across. The trackers weren't adequate for the job, so most of the guns disappeared. Worth noting that the entire operation consisted of only a couple thousand guns or under 5% of the annual traffic.
The Republicans would lose if they ran on almost anything in that list. If they did manage to get enough nutjobs to vote for them, they'd lose a few years later when the US had moved into a place where the corporations and rich benefit from the lax laws and no technological or social progress is made.
I think in the US there's a better correlation between population/poverty and gun violence than gun control and gun violence. Having gun control in a city isn't as effective when the neighboring town has a gun fair every weekend.
B. Tens of thousands of guns end up in Mexico from the US. Mexico is actually pleading with the US to restrict sales so that a kid can't go in and buy 20 heavy weapons to smuggle across the border.
C. The guns are coming from the surrounding areas, they would be just as dangerous (or more) if they allowed guns. A (geographically) broader ban on guns would bring down the gun deaths.
Or more as the teachers accidentally shoot students, students steal the teachers' guns to play with, end up shooting themselves. Having more guns around - especially around children makes it more dangerous. Considering the number of kids killed in school shootings compared to the number of kids killed in accidental gun deaths, I'd guess we're better off now.
Oh if you can do it, that means everyone can. 1.5 seconds is still a lot of time for bystanders to get in and take down the shooter.
What's stopping people from making chlorine gas in a crowded place is: 1. that's more complicated than getting a gun. Killers typically aren't smart reasonable people. 2. They'd risk killing themselves 3. It's not as directed, so they might end up killing the guy next to them, but not the woman they hate across the room. 4. Good ventilation systems.
The thing about criminals is that they aren't just evil people always breaking the law. They're people like everyone else. If you make a law saying they can't carry a gun somewhere, say a store or bar, then they have to actively break a law before they've committed another crime before murdering someone which provides another chance to stop them and another chance for them to reconsider. If it's just a random shooting, like the killer got in an argument with someone and decided to "stand his ground", then he wouldn't have a weapon if he didn't want to first break the "no-gun" law.
Opera Mini is the one that loads data on a server and sends the simplified page to the device. Opera Mobile is the fully functional browser for mobile devices
Slashdot Mirror
It's more that we might as well take out the low hanging fruit before we move to the more reasonable weapons. Rifles don't really have a use in civilian hands and we still have hundreds of murders caused by them. We've forced car companies into recalls over fewer deaths.
There's now http://mbeta.slashdot.org/ which looks pretty spiffy on mobile devices and even validates (except for some code strangely there to handle IE)
Interestingly, any study that contradicts the NRA's "guns are perfect" theology tends to be buried and discredited no matter how accurate it is. When the (I think) FDA department of injuries found that households with guns were less safe, the NRA lobbied to have the department defunded because they didn't think they should be doing research like that.
If the government wants to kill/imprison you or take your gun away, they're going to do it. You can't fight off the government, just look at what's happened to the nut jobs that have tried. There was the waco seige where the government overpowered the fanatics in the 90s, even recently there was a guy that burned down his house and hid in a bunker in the wood he had built until a swat team essentially blew it up.
That's why the good version controls have an "ignore whitespace" option when comparing versions.
We're not talking about serial killers here - the people doing these mass shootings aren't the type to plan through their actions and figure out the correct brands of cleaning components, they went to grab a gun from their local gun show and pop in a magazine with as many bullets as possible.
If there are a few people around hiding behind walls or barricades, 1.5 seconds could be enough time to rush a shooter and interrupt his reloading.
You seem to be ignoring the small number of guns involved in this. Clearly the FFLs ARE selling the guns since tens of thousands are being bought and trafficked to Mexico. As any gun nut will tell you, restricting gun sales has no effect on gun crime, therefore, the opposite is also true and making it easier for criminals to get guns also has no effect on gun crime.
Not actually true, but good try. The scandal in Fast and Furious wasn't that the US was providing the guns, it was that the US lost track of the guns. The US knew that the guns were being trafficked to Mexico, but due to our ridiculous gun laws, it's actually legal for someone to buy a couple dozen AR-15s at once and then just take them over by the border where they get smuggled across. The trackers weren't adequate for the job, so most of the guns disappeared. Worth noting that the entire operation consisted of only a couple thousand guns or under 5% of the annual traffic.
The Republicans would lose if they ran on almost anything in that list. If they did manage to get enough nutjobs to vote for them, they'd lose a few years later when the US had moved into a place where the corporations and rich benefit from the lax laws and no technological or social progress is made.
I think in the US there's a better correlation between population/poverty and gun violence than gun control and gun violence. Having gun control in a city isn't as effective when the neighboring town has a gun fair every weekend.
B. Tens of thousands of guns end up in Mexico from the US. Mexico is actually pleading with the US to restrict sales so that a kid can't go in and buy 20 heavy weapons to smuggle across the border.
C. The guns are coming from the surrounding areas, they would be just as dangerous (or more) if they allowed guns. A (geographically) broader ban on guns would bring down the gun deaths.
Or more as the teachers accidentally shoot students, students steal the teachers' guns to play with, end up shooting themselves. Having more guns around - especially around children makes it more dangerous. Considering the number of kids killed in school shootings compared to the number of kids killed in accidental gun deaths, I'd guess we're better off now.
Oh if you can do it, that means everyone can. 1.5 seconds is still a lot of time for bystanders to get in and take down the shooter.
What's stopping people from making chlorine gas in a crowded place is: 1. that's more complicated than getting a gun. Killers typically aren't smart reasonable people. 2. They'd risk killing themselves 3. It's not as directed, so they might end up killing the guy next to them, but not the woman they hate across the room. 4. Good ventilation systems.
The thing about criminals is that they aren't just evil people always breaking the law. They're people like everyone else. If you make a law saying they can't carry a gun somewhere, say a store or bar, then they have to actively break a law before they've committed another crime before murdering someone which provides another chance to stop them and another chance for them to reconsider. If it's just a random shooting, like the killer got in an argument with someone and decided to "stand his ground", then he wouldn't have a weapon if he didn't want to first break the "no-gun" law.
Or just ebay a bunch of broken phones and leave them in a basket by the door.
The police also show up apparently, though in cases where the 911 GPS points to his house for domestic violence calls, not missing phones.
Opera Mini is the one that loads data on a server and sends the simplified page to the device. Opera Mobile is the fully functional browser for mobile devices
Or maybe just take away Churches as charities.
The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government
Except the roads. And basic education. And police/fire protection. And the regulations that keep corporations from poisoning us. And the aquaducts...
But you mentioned the Euro compared to the Dollar, so it doesn't really matter where you moved.
Because the severe austerity measures of Europe are doing so much better?
As long as we cut spending on the "freeloading 47%" and not the "job creators", the Republicans will be for it.
The spending bills is a law from congress, just as the debt limit is - couldn't the newer law override the old one?
What was it that Mitt Romney said he paid? 15%? Their tax rate might be 35% but they're not paying 35%
Seems like he's legitimizing it as an option by trying to ban it - not that anyone was even considering it seriously.
As long as we cut spending on the freeloading 47% and not the job creators, the Republicans will be for it.