Pardon the miscommunication. My point was more directed at the legion of people on the internet who believe the.45ACP to be the smallest acceptable handgun caliber in existence. Among the common calibers which could be expected to reliably penetrate (.38 Special, 9MM,.357,.40,.45,.44) there has been little provable difference in lethality or stopping power.
Over half of those would be suicides and they generally support the sometimes harmful nature of firearms. So would 12.5 Million registered hunters and the law abiding citizens in 1-2 Million "defensive gun uses" every year.
For the 60 some million people (a rate that increases every year) owning over 200 million firearms 15,000 would be small even if it didn't include police shootings and intentional acts of self defense and is even less if you're cynical and feel that the another third or so shouldn't be counted because the victims were either committed by drug dealers or against them.
I think the gun laws of CA which feature limits on magazine size (which is only effective in stopping a madman who forgets how to reload or wants to kill more than 10 people) and on mostly cosmetic factors such as pistol grips (because that makes every rifle more deadly?) and bayonet lugs (honestly?) rather than working on tougher enforcement of the rules that are already on the books involving record keeping would argue against the logic of the gun control lobby in general.
Why ban.50 rifles that cost upwards of $3000 and are are about as subtle as a freight train when a nice.223 or even a.22 can be purchased for a couple hundred dollars by anyone over the age of 18? Why not close the loopholes in certain states that allow "missing" guns to not be reported stolen until after they turn up at a crime scene hundreds of miles away or being more on the lookout for strawman buying? Why not crack down on the record keeping of shops that have a tendency to lose half their inventory instead trying to add more checks and paperwork and permits that only affect people that actually buy guns legally?
I find myself more on the right than the left of this issue, and some days it sickens me because the NRA is batshit out of their minds, but at least I don't have to watch them on the news here telling me how a new law is going to solve all my problems.
It's nice to talk on the internet with theoreticians. I'm sad to say I couldn't dig up the California report I was looking for that says you're just as likely to die being shot with a 9mm as a.45ACP (although this leaves wiggle room as to how long a person would live after being shot which has proven harder to measure).
I can however give you the FBI brief on wounding factors and effectiveness (which can be found on reproduced on various websites and exists on FBI.gov but is inaccessible) which states that a higher caliber rarely makes a difference. You may want to consider some of their other fine reports which cover fun things like over penetration (most shots miss anyway) and "knockdown force" (which is a physical impossibility but still trumpeted as a strength of larger calibers). I'm not saying that most people survive repeated shootings of any caliber, just that the caliber in question being a.45 doesn't make much difference.
The problem is not that the gun can be fired, it's that if children are old enough to find and play with reasonably stored guns they're old enough to be educated that guns aren't toys.
Firearms manufacturing is one of the oldest forms of craft and art in the United States as is evident by Pennsylvania's recent push to honor the Pennsylvania long rifle as a storied part of their national history. Furthermore many involve masterful engineering and mechanics as well as providing a fun hobby to enjoy outdoors either in the form of casual target shooting or hunting.
Oh. You just wanted to register your arrogant distaste? I wont be so bold as to presume you're from a nation on another continent that bans ownership to its own citizens but happily exports them to nations around the world, but I will say you'd be surprised how much more understandable the interest is when they're a common and generally harmless part of your existence rather than an evil bogeyman.
It would be more in line with their aesthetic choice though. I'm a little worried by the enthusiasm towards guns that look like space blasters and the toy like enthusiasm that surrounds them. Admittedly none of this is probably from serious shooters, just guys on the internet with a little too much money to burn.
Statistics on actual shooting deaths from the L.A.P.D. would tend to disagree with you.
There's no replacement for shot placement. The only reason no one has ever been shot 31 times with a.45 in the news is because most of them are single stack.
I'm still curious how effective it will be given the close quarters nature of an officer having his gun taken in the first place, and just how many departments are willing to take up a system that could leave their officers with an expensive rock in their holsters potentially.
That said, $10,000 is an awfully expensive solution when most departments can get Glocks with a volume discount in the $300-400 range.
There's already enough to horrify you on Youtube and Myspace with kids who like to play with Daddies Guns to put up badass pictures for their friends to see, and yet people still blame firearms when negligence happens. Every firearm I've ever purchased lays it out plane as day:
1) Know your target and what's behind it.
2) Assume every gun is loaded. 3) Do not aim at or pull the trigger on anything you don't want to kill or destroy.
You think you're witty because you're making a crack at the large amount of debt Americans are carrying. I think you're a knob because you're not at all refuting my point that Americans have more to spend, and can very clearly even spend more than they make.
Change is hard and, so far, we haven't been very good at making it, short of a catastrophe.
We're at year 5-10 of The "Year of the Linux Desktop!" and it's still not all that close to becoming a reality but every Slashdot post can tell you it's an obvious solution to the computer worlds problems.
Not saying you're right or wrong, just that it's clear change doesn't happen overnight if at all.
If I go target shooting I have to play "Pass the Wristwatch" to enjoy it as a communal activity and pay 10x as much for the privileged. If want to use it for self defense I have to wear the watch at all times and go through an extra layer of complications. Better yet in that situation if the gun is taken from me as we wrestle on the ground it's entirely likely that the gun will never move far enough to deactivate before I'm shot repeatedly in the chest and the watch and gun are taken.
Sounds like a lot of money to acquire a possibility of safety as well as making previously safe activities more complicated.
The question is why is this tablet perfect for board games and the dozens of other tablets that have been around for years were not? Cheaper tablets that aren't locked down? That already have boardgame software written for them? That people have already been using to play boardgames?
If the only garden is walled, and the walled garden is the topic of the discussion, I move that we save discussion of non-walled gardens until they're more than a theoretical, at least while discussing if the iPad is at all worth buying.
A cardboard game can be lent to absolutely anyone and played by anyone they know in any way they can imagine with no accounts, logons, or additional purchases. You can even change the rules on the fly, or switch players, or stop and do something else because RealLife can handle more than one App running at a time. Then you can take the pieces from that game and combine them with another and make a totally new game!
I'd like to point out that there's a difference between people who love boardgames and people who are unfun to play boardgames with because they go online and read the advice of people who sink 20 hours of math into calculating odds and value tables before coming over to your house for some casual fun on a Friday night.
I don't find any game very fun if most of the people involved are just looking to have some fun and one person is looking to end the game in 30 minutes with the most technically sound crushing imaginable. I guess you find people like that in every hobby though.
In the non-revised editions of Axis and Allies the Axis only had a 17% chance of winning because if they couldn't take London on the first turn the U.S. could land troops on the Eastern Front and the war was over. Tell that to people who have been playing it for years and they look at you in shock. Most of them would never have considered either move because what kind of WWII is that?
All the competitive Monopoly I see nowadays is profit vs. time, 1 vs.1 since well played longer games would never end with even three players who were each convinced not to let the third fall to their opponent.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon the miscommunication. My point was more directed at the legion of people on the internet who believe the .45ACP to be the smallest acceptable handgun caliber in existence. Among the common calibers which could be expected to reliably penetrate (.38 Special, 9MM, .357, .40, .45, .44) there has been little provable difference in lethality or stopping power.
Over half of those would be suicides and they generally support the sometimes harmful nature of firearms. So would 12.5 Million registered hunters and the law abiding citizens in 1-2 Million "defensive gun uses" every year.
For the 60 some million people (a rate that increases every year) owning over 200 million firearms 15,000 would be small even if it didn't include police shootings and intentional acts of self defense and is even less if you're cynical and feel that the another third or so shouldn't be counted because the victims were either committed by drug dealers or against them.
I think the gun laws of CA which feature limits on magazine size (which is only effective in stopping a madman who forgets how to reload or wants to kill more than 10 people) and on mostly cosmetic factors such as pistol grips (because that makes every rifle more deadly?) and bayonet lugs (honestly?) rather than working on tougher enforcement of the rules that are already on the books involving record keeping would argue against the logic of the gun control lobby in general.
.50 rifles that cost upwards of $3000 and are are about as subtle as a freight train when a nice .223 or even a .22 can be purchased for a couple hundred dollars by anyone over the age of 18? Why not close the loopholes in certain states that allow "missing" guns to not be reported stolen until after they turn up at a crime scene hundreds of miles away or being more on the lookout for strawman buying? Why not crack down on the record keeping of shops that have a tendency to lose half their inventory instead trying to add more checks and paperwork and permits that only affect people that actually buy guns legally?
Why ban
I find myself more on the right than the left of this issue, and some days it sickens me because the NRA is batshit out of their minds, but at least I don't have to watch them on the news here telling me how a new law is going to solve all my problems.
It's nice to talk on the internet with theoreticians. I'm sad to say I couldn't dig up the California report I was looking for that says you're just as likely to die being shot with a 9mm as a .45ACP (although this leaves wiggle room as to how long a person would live after being shot which has proven harder to measure).
.45 doesn't make much difference.
I can however give you the FBI brief on wounding factors and effectiveness (which can be found on reproduced on various websites and exists on FBI.gov but is inaccessible) which states that a higher caliber rarely makes a difference. You may want to consider some of their other fine reports which cover fun things like over penetration (most shots miss anyway) and "knockdown force" (which is a physical impossibility but still trumpeted as a strength of larger calibers). I'm not saying that most people survive repeated shootings of any caliber, just that the caliber in question being a
Would you let your kids play with a locked gun?
The problem is not that the gun can be fired, it's that if children are old enough to find and play with reasonably stored guns they're old enough to be educated that guns aren't toys.
Pennsylvania state history, US national history as part of the Revolutionary War, pardon.
Firearms manufacturing is one of the oldest forms of craft and art in the United States as is evident by Pennsylvania's recent push to honor the Pennsylvania long rifle as a storied part of their national history. Furthermore many involve masterful engineering and mechanics as well as providing a fun hobby to enjoy outdoors either in the form of casual target shooting or hunting.
Oh. You just wanted to register your arrogant distaste? I wont be so bold as to presume you're from a nation on another continent that bans ownership to its own citizens but happily exports them to nations around the world, but I will say you'd be surprised how much more understandable the interest is when they're a common and generally harmless part of your existence rather than an evil bogeyman.
One is a minor problem in need of a solution, the other is negligence which cannot be defeated by any mechanical means.
It would be more in line with their aesthetic choice though. I'm a little worried by the enthusiasm towards guns that look like space blasters and the toy like enthusiasm that surrounds them. Admittedly none of this is probably from serious shooters, just guys on the internet with a little too much money to burn.
Statistics on actual shooting deaths from the L.A.P.D. would tend to disagree with you.
.45 in the news is because most of them are single stack.
There's no replacement for shot placement. The only reason no one has ever been shot 31 times with a
I'm still curious how effective it will be given the close quarters nature of an officer having his gun taken in the first place, and just how many departments are willing to take up a system that could leave their officers with an expensive rock in their holsters potentially.
That said, $10,000 is an awfully expensive solution when most departments can get Glocks with a volume discount in the $300-400 range.
There's already enough to horrify you on Youtube and Myspace with kids who like to play with Daddies Guns to put up badass pictures for their friends to see, and yet people still blame firearms when negligence happens. Every firearm I've ever purchased lays it out plane as day:
1) Know your target and what's behind it.
2) Assume every gun is loaded.
3) Do not aim at or pull the trigger on anything you don't want to kill or destroy.
You think you're witty because you're making a crack at the large amount of debt Americans are carrying. I think you're a knob because you're not at all refuting my point that Americans have more to spend, and can very clearly even spend more than they make.
Change is hard and, so far, we haven't been very good at making it, short of a catastrophe.
We're at year 5-10 of The "Year of the Linux Desktop!" and it's still not all that close to becoming a reality but every Slashdot post can tell you it's an obvious solution to the computer worlds problems.
Not saying you're right or wrong, just that it's clear change doesn't happen overnight if at all.
Because now someone might actually try to enforce the idiotic legislation.
Unless you're wearing gloves, or your hands are dirty, or the battery dies...
"Black rifle" in this context is slang for a weapon built on the AR-15/10 platform.
Great.
If I go target shooting I have to play "Pass the Wristwatch" to enjoy it as a communal activity and pay 10x as much for the privileged. If want to use it for self defense I have to wear the watch at all times and go through an extra layer of complications. Better yet in that situation if the gun is taken from me as we wrestle on the ground it's entirely likely that the gun will never move far enough to deactivate before I'm shot repeatedly in the chest and the watch and gun are taken.
Sounds like a lot of money to acquire a possibility of safety as well as making previously safe activities more complicated.
The question is why is this tablet perfect for board games and the dozens of other tablets that have been around for years were not? Cheaper tablets that aren't locked down? That already have boardgame software written for them? That people have already been using to play boardgames?
If the only garden is walled, and the walled garden is the topic of the discussion, I move that we save discussion of non-walled gardens until they're more than a theoretical, at least while discussing if the iPad is at all worth buying.
I'm glad that's a selling point.
A cardboard game can be lent to absolutely anyone and played by anyone they know in any way they can imagine with no accounts, logons, or additional purchases. You can even change the rules on the fly, or switch players, or stop and do something else because RealLife can handle more than one App running at a time. Then you can take the pieces from that game and combine them with another and make a totally new game!
A boardgame is only single use when you can't change the rules or reuse the pieces because they're hardcoded and sold through a proprietary store.
Some games specifically allow cheating in the rules.
I'd like to point out that there's a difference between people who love boardgames and people who are unfun to play boardgames with because they go online and read the advice of people who sink 20 hours of math into calculating odds and value tables before coming over to your house for some casual fun on a Friday night.
I don't find any game very fun if most of the people involved are just looking to have some fun and one person is looking to end the game in 30 minutes with the most technically sound crushing imaginable. I guess you find people like that in every hobby though.
In the non-revised editions of Axis and Allies the Axis only had a 17% chance of winning because if they couldn't take London on the first turn the U.S. could land troops on the Eastern Front and the war was over. Tell that to people who have been playing it for years and they look at you in shock. Most of them would never have considered either move because what kind of WWII is that?
All the competitive Monopoly I see nowadays is profit vs. time, 1 vs.1 since well played longer games would never end with even three players who were each convinced not to let the third fall to their opponent.
And all of those games would be absolute hell to play on a screen the size of an iPad.