My immediate emotional response to firearms is that anyone who is interested in them shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. I don't mind highly trained soldiers or cops being given tools, I just don't see why psychotic fantasists should be allowed them.
Posted AC for obvious reasons.
The obvious reason being that you are ashamed of such stupidity. It is obvious to most people that the world isn't divided into soldiers, cops and psychotic fantasists, nor is there any reason to think that anyone who is interested in firearms is psychotic. Firearms are many times been used for self defense, you are quite right to acknowledge that classifying such people as psychotic fantasists is an emotional response because it certainly isn't a logical one. Perhaps you should consider counseling.
Your previous post is still nonsense. If it had been deliberate nonsense, we might have called it humor. There is probably a word to describe nonsense that was intended to serious.
If you are carrying a gun in a way that it can go off without you intending it to, then you are being irresponsible, and the concerns of the anti-gun crowd are quite warranted.
Hence the statement that such behaviour gives fuel to the anti-gun crowd.
a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles
You fire "millions" of rounds from a single weapon?
No, he doesn't, that's the point, the MTBF of a spring and lever is far higher than normal use making failure very unlikely which is not the case with consumer grade electronic components. They say there are no stupid questions but I think you've come pretty close. Do you have an emotional response to firearms that makes thinking difficult for you?
It's not just that, churchgoers are already trained to respond to authority. They were probably more compliant with the researchers. Being in an environment where they were being told what to think would no doubt be familiar and comfortable for them. This could make them seem better (it was short term treatment) but it could be said that such submissiveness is a mental problem of it's own.
Some of us aren't restricting our activities to what robbers will "allow". Some of us won't allow this robbers to do stuff.
so carrying any kind of weapon for self defence is pointless once the robbery is taking place
Obviously you would be carrying the weapon before the robbery took place and staying alert. Robbers are not magical. They do not "appear out of nowhere". They must approach you or lie in wait so if you are aware of your surroundings it is very difficult for a robber to surprise you. To say that weapons are not effective for self defense flies in the face of thousands of years experience. Why do police have them if they are so ineffective? It is true that nothing can protect you if you walk around oblivious but that isn't something we should encourage, IMO.
It still doesn't make any sense. If the telco needs to lock the phone so the customers stay with them for long enough to pay for the phone, what purpose does signing the contract serve? If the contract makes sure you pay for your phone (and it does) then the phone locking is unjustified.
the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off
No, if he didn't pull the trigger it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't decided to operate an unfamiliar weapon while aiming it at a child it wouldn't have happened. In any case he decided to take the safety off and should have been aware that when you take the safety off the gun can fire, especially if you pull the trigger. Would you let this guy handle firearms around your children if the safety design was changed? Not me.
the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber
If he hadn't aimed it at the kid and pulled the trigger this would have been no problem.
I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.
Handguns are designed as lethal weapons. They are not safe by definition. They can be handled safely or unsafely but can not be made safe and perform their intended purpose. The safety is there to reduce the likelihood of accidental discharge, no amount of engineering can prevent negligent discharge. If a gun fires because the trigger is pulled it isn't an accident it's negligence. If you are holding it in your hand, pointed at a person and pull the trigger it is not a design error when that person dies, it's a feature. The main feature. The pistol can't judge your intention.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
That is a pretty accurate description of reality. There is the possibility of safety in numbers, however if one boss holds decision making power over your whole income you are in a very hard position. Personally I could replace my boss faster and easier than he could replace me, but I'm working for less money than I could get in favor of working for someone I like and respect. He won't be asking for my passwords.
Would you seek advice on the subject of stopping/avoiding a bully from someone who has failed in all their attempts to do so?
If they tried the exact same idea you are advocating and it failed then yes, I'd listen. If ignoring bullies might work sometimes and other times makes things worse then it's important to understand why and not implement that strategy at the wrong time.
It was Ghandi's advice, he believed it better to die than fight.
YMMV.
If his own countrymen won't follow him (India is nuclear armed) why should we? In any case, he didn't ignore he confronted peacefully and he believed fighting was superior to cowardice. I think teaching your children it is better to suffer or give in to bullying than fight back is morally equivalent to child abuse, especially when they are encountering that bullying in an environment they are in by compulsion.
The New Testament (which supersedes the Old thus avoiding all the violent prescriptions therein according to many Christians, despite that the New Testament itself is contradictory on whether it does or doesn't supersede)
Some theological clarification on how this is supposed to work is covered in Romans 7: 1-6. To summarize: Christians are considered to be dead (crucified with Christ) and therefore have passed beyond the jurisdiction of old testament law. Every christian has already been judged worthy of death according to Jesus interpretation of the law, in which getting angry shows you to be a murderer and looking at a woman to lust shows you to be an adulterer etc. The law itself has not changed and is still in effect.
You might be hard pressed to find christians who can explain that but if you put it like that to someone with theological training they will likely understand and agree with it.
Agriculture is used for things other than food production. What about cotton, wool and timber production, are they evil too? Al Gore should reduce his emissions by shutting up.
I turned on MSNBC just a minute ago. The question on the screen said "Can Mark Sanford win over family-values Republicans?" Then I turned on Fox. The question on the screen said "Automatic gun ban fail: Did the press pass on the news?" One of those is a real question, and one of those seems to be trying to put an answer in your head.
An outsider's (Australian) perspective: Most media coverage of firearms incidents and legislation is excellent material for studying propaganda efforts. The steadfast refusal of many media outlets to report defensive use of firearms and the outright distortion of facts when it comes to the effectiveness of gun control is so blatant that it defies credibility that it is anything other than deliberate. IMO it is a valid topic to report.
I have seen Australia used as an example of effective gun control by the US pro gun control lobby and as an example of ineffective gun control by the US pro gun lobby. Neither tells the truth and both are selective of the facts they are willing to report. Either side could easily find facts that don't support their agenda but they don't. Here's the reality: for a news service to be useful you need to understand their bias. The stories they choose and how they present them will be influenced by that no matter how objective they try to be. Political news should always be understood as spin, even when it exposes someone else's spin. The news tells you what powerful people want you to believe and stuff they don't care if you know about.
Uh, I must be alone in my mother's basement and am selfish in my relationships because I don't want to be like you have portrayed yourself here? Sure buddy, whatever you say. I suppose somewhere in your fevered imagination there is some sort of logic to that but it is beyond my abilities to detect it. You came across as a guy that's afraid of random people in the cinema but willing to brave the cinema out of fear of your wife. You're going to have to understand that a lot of people are going to have trouble respecting that.
Confrontation is uncomfortable to most, so they "ignore" things that bother them.
If someone avoids all confrontation out of fear they are traditionally described as a coward. Not everything that you don't like is worth confronting people over but that should be motivated by tolerance, not fear.
I hate opening-weekend movies, and never go, unless the wife makes me.
Look, most of us don't want to be like you. I hope you find happiness but we don't want to live in a world that caters too much to people like you either. You should be prepared to stand up for yourself. If everyone takes the attitude you do, that it is someone else's job, we all lose our rights.
If somebody kicks in your door, I could imagine situations where people who are armed and in their home fire back at an intruder who claims to be the police. And what a mess that would be.
Most water people use ends up in the drain, being treated and returned to the system. Bringing in desalinated water doesn't preserve the natural water levels in that area it adds to it. Desalination and centralized distribution also has infrastructure and energy costs that local rain harvesting doesn't and then there's the problem of what to do with the salt.
Slashdot Mirror
My immediate emotional response to firearms is that anyone who is interested in them shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. I don't mind highly trained soldiers or cops being given tools, I just don't see why psychotic fantasists should be allowed them.
Posted AC for obvious reasons.
The obvious reason being that you are ashamed of such stupidity. It is obvious to most people that the world isn't divided into soldiers, cops and psychotic fantasists, nor is there any reason to think that anyone who is interested in firearms is psychotic. Firearms are many times been used for self defense, you are quite right to acknowledge that classifying such people as psychotic fantasists is an emotional response because it certainly isn't a logical one. Perhaps you should consider counseling.
Your previous post is still nonsense. If it had been deliberate nonsense, we might have called it humor. There is probably a word to describe nonsense that was intended to serious.
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. Water was boiling for my first cup of coffee, I should have waited.
If you are carrying a gun in a way that it can go off without you intending it to, then you are being irresponsible, and the concerns of the anti-gun crowd are quite warranted.
Hence the statement that such behaviour gives fuel to the anti-gun crowd.
a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles
You fire "millions" of rounds from a single weapon?
No, he doesn't, that's the point, the MTBF of a spring and lever is far higher than normal use making failure very unlikely which is not the case with consumer grade electronic components. They say there are no stupid questions but I think you've come pretty close. Do you have an emotional response to firearms that makes thinking difficult for you?
It's not just that, churchgoers are already trained to respond to authority. They were probably more compliant with the researchers. Being in an environment where they were being told what to think would no doubt be familiar and comfortable for them. This could make them seem better (it was short term treatment) but it could be said that such submissiveness is a mental problem of it's own.
ZERO massacres since 1996.
June 2000 - Childers Palace fire.
no robber will allow you to pull your own weapon
Some of us aren't restricting our activities to what robbers will "allow". Some of us won't allow this robbers to do stuff.
so carrying any kind of weapon for self defence is pointless once the robbery is taking place
Obviously you would be carrying the weapon before the robbery took place and staying alert. Robbers are not magical. They do not "appear out of nowhere". They must approach you or lie in wait so if you are aware of your surroundings it is very difficult for a robber to surprise you. To say that weapons are not effective for self defense flies in the face of thousands of years experience. Why do police have them if they are so ineffective? It is true that nothing can protect you if you walk around oblivious but that isn't something we should encourage, IMO.
It still doesn't make any sense. If the telco needs to lock the phone so the customers stay with them for long enough to pay for the phone, what purpose does signing the contract serve? If the contract makes sure you pay for your phone (and it does) then the phone locking is unjustified.
I absolutely never ever apologize for something I did not do or for something that is not my fault. But then again, I am not Canadian.
or a married male, apparently.
the only reason the negligent discharge occurred at all was because the safety was turned off
No, if he didn't pull the trigger it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't decided to operate an unfamiliar weapon while aiming it at a child it wouldn't have happened. In any case he decided to take the safety off and should have been aware that when you take the safety off the gun can fire, especially if you pull the trigger. Would you let this guy handle firearms around your children if the safety design was changed? Not me.
the only reason the safety was turned off was because the design made it necessary to do so in order to remove the round from the chamber
If he hadn't aimed it at the kid and pulled the trigger this would have been no problem.
I said that the safety is there to increase the safety of the device (by preventing the gun from firing), and that when the design of that safety prevents you from doing something else that would further increase the safety of the device (disarming it), it is, in effect, decreasing the safety of the device.
Handguns are designed as lethal weapons. They are not safe by definition. They can be handled safely or unsafely but can not be made safe and perform their intended purpose. The safety is there to reduce the likelihood of accidental discharge, no amount of engineering can prevent negligent discharge. If a gun fires because the trigger is pulled it isn't an accident it's negligence. If you are holding it in your hand, pointed at a person and pull the trigger it is not a design error when that person dies, it's a feature. The main feature. The pistol can't judge your intention.
So basically what you're saying is... if you have money, you can ignore the law, but if you're poor (and thus can't afford to lose your job), you're forced to go along with whatever freedom-eschewing measure your local legislator is cooking up this week to screw you over?
That is a pretty accurate description of reality. There is the possibility of safety in numbers, however if one boss holds decision making power over your whole income you are in a very hard position. Personally I could replace my boss faster and easier than he could replace me, but I'm working for less money than I could get in favor of working for someone I like and respect. He won't be asking for my passwords.
Would you seek advice on the subject of stopping/avoiding a bully from someone who has failed in all their attempts to do so?
If they tried the exact same idea you are advocating and it failed then yes, I'd listen. If ignoring bullies might work sometimes and other times makes things worse then it's important to understand why and not implement that strategy at the wrong time.
It was Ghandi's advice, he believed it better to die than fight.
YMMV.
If his own countrymen won't follow him (India is nuclear armed) why should we? In any case, he didn't ignore he confronted peacefully and he believed fighting was superior to cowardice. I think teaching your children it is better to suffer or give in to bullying than fight back is morally equivalent to child abuse, especially when they are encountering that bullying in an environment they are in by compulsion.
Once you get to heaven you will be made perfect and will be able to understand the bible correctly. Until then just listen to the man in the dress.
The New Testament (which supersedes the Old thus avoiding all the violent prescriptions therein according to many Christians, despite that the New Testament itself is contradictory on whether it does or doesn't supersede)
Some theological clarification on how this is supposed to work is covered in Romans 7: 1-6. To summarize: Christians are considered to be dead (crucified with Christ) and therefore have passed beyond the jurisdiction of old testament law. Every christian has already been judged worthy of death according to Jesus interpretation of the law, in which getting angry shows you to be a murderer and looking at a woman to lust shows you to be an adulterer etc. The law itself has not changed and is still in effect.
You might be hard pressed to find christians who can explain that but if you put it like that to someone with theological training they will likely understand and agree with it.
Agriculture is used for things other than food production. What about cotton, wool and timber production, are they evil too? Al Gore should reduce his emissions by shutting up.
I can also relate to her hesitancy to not confront the "developers" directly, lest she become the direct topic of innuendo.
Aiiieeee, not innuendo, PLEASE!
Next you'll be threatening people with the comfy chair.
I turned on MSNBC just a minute ago. The question on the screen said "Can Mark Sanford win over family-values Republicans?" Then I turned on Fox. The question on the screen said "Automatic gun ban fail: Did the press pass on the news?" One of those is a real question, and one of those seems to be trying to put an answer in your head.
An outsider's (Australian) perspective: Most media coverage of firearms incidents and legislation is excellent material for studying propaganda efforts. The steadfast refusal of many media outlets to report defensive use of firearms and the outright distortion of facts when it comes to the effectiveness of gun control is so blatant that it defies credibility that it is anything other than deliberate. IMO it is a valid topic to report.
I have seen Australia used as an example of effective gun control by the US pro gun control lobby and as an example of ineffective gun control by the US pro gun lobby. Neither tells the truth and both are selective of the facts they are willing to report. Either side could easily find facts that don't support their agenda but they don't. Here's the reality: for a news service to be useful you need to understand their bias. The stories they choose and how they present them will be influenced by that no matter how objective they try to be. Political news should always be understood as spin, even when it exposes someone else's spin. The news tells you what powerful people want you to believe and stuff they don't care if you know about.
where the fuck did you guys learn your ethics for war? from fucking terrorists?
Even worse than that: Hollywood.
Uh, I must be alone in my mother's basement and am selfish in my relationships because I don't want to be like you have portrayed yourself here? Sure buddy, whatever you say. I suppose somewhere in your fevered imagination there is some sort of logic to that but it is beyond my abilities to detect it. You came across as a guy that's afraid of random people in the cinema but willing to brave the cinema out of fear of your wife. You're going to have to understand that a lot of people are going to have trouble respecting that.
Confrontation is uncomfortable to most, so they "ignore" things that bother them.
If someone avoids all confrontation out of fear they are traditionally described as a coward. Not everything that you don't like is worth confronting people over but that should be motivated by tolerance, not fear.
I hate opening-weekend movies, and never go, unless the wife makes me.
Look, most of us don't want to be like you. I hope you find happiness but we don't want to live in a world that caters too much to people like you either. You should be prepared to stand up for yourself. If everyone takes the attitude you do, that it is someone else's job, we all lose our rights.
If somebody kicks in your door, I could imagine situations where people who are armed and in their home fire back at an intruder who claims to be the police. And what a mess that would be.
Yay guns! They make us safe.
Yay police! They make us safe.
Most water people use ends up in the drain, being treated and returned to the system. Bringing in desalinated water doesn't preserve the natural water levels in that area it adds to it. Desalination and centralized distribution also has infrastructure and energy costs that local rain harvesting doesn't and then there's the problem of what to do with the salt.