>"Quickly solved by local populace"... bloody hell, that is why police and court system was "invented".
Where were the police and court systems for the 23 dead, 20 wounded? Oh right, they were the ones that told Suzanna Hupp she couldn't carry her gun in a restaurant. And because she obeyed the law, she got to watch her family die before her eyes.
The same sad story is becoming more common. There were conceal carry permit holders at Vtech who left their guns at home because carrying them could get them expelled or arrested while on campus.
Police and courts are only useful after a mass casualty event has occurred, not before and only sometimes during the event.
>Unfortunately "danger" is in the beholder of the eye.
No. There is a time when lethal force is a legally allowed by civilians in defense. It is the following(slight variations by state and locale, know your laws and this is not legal advice): "The accepted definition of the justifiable use of deadly force is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. There must clearly be no hope of escaping an attack safely. The attacker must fulfill three conditions to justify a lethal defense on the victim's part: 1. ABILITY - The attacker must have the power to kill or cause crippling injury, or to be advantaged with a disparity of force or a disparity of skill, such as a prizefighter or black-belt karateist (which the victim must know before hand). 2. OPPORTUNITY - The attacker must be capable of employing bodily harm immediately. He must be within range. 3. JEOPARDY - The perpetrator must be acting in such a manner that a reasonably prudent person would assume he intended to attack. "
>it has been proved far too many times that "revenge" is too strong an urge.
Care to back that statement up? Words are only air unless they have facts to back them up.
I'm not proposing lynching. I'm proposing that citizens be allowed to react to immediate and unavoidable dangers to themselves or to innocents. Once that danger is avoidable or no longer immediate, lethal force is not an option that citizens who carry guns use.
So yes, I am serious about what I am saying, and no, what you are saying I am saying is not what I am saying or what I was saying. Do you see what I'm saying?
>This one is often repeated, but, much as I like Heinlein, it's simply not true.
It simply IS true. When I see a police officer walk down the street with a gun in a holster, I don't fear him. When I see a civilian do the same, I don't fear him. When I'm at a shooting range with 20+ people, I don't fear any of them.
The only reason you fear them is because of the mainstream media chanting "Guns are BAAAAD" for as long as I remember, and people fear bad things (or things they have been told are bad.)
Fear is the mindkiller.
Once you understand the things you fear, you can let go of the fear, and only you will remain, a wiser person and a safer person.
Firearms accidents are an issue. My proposal which I am putting to local and state groups (and fed, if I can find a receptive crowd in congress) is to put forward a mandatory education system for archaic and modern weapons. Upon graduating from high school in the USA, every man and woman should be proficient with blades, guns, pepper spray, kubotons, and unarmed combat. With everyone proficient in all of these weapons systems, the dangers of firearms accidents would drastically drop.
The only remaining major issue with firearms related deaths happens to be suicide. But suicides will happen regardless, a suicidal person will find a gun, knife, or noose to arrange their own demise. Only through the intervention of family, friends, and as a last resort the state can a person be prevented from taking their own life.
>This is perhaps the dumbest thing the NRA ever said.
Quote by Robert Heinlein, not the NRA.
>An armed society is not, in fact, a polite society but rather it is a frightened society.
Bullshit. The only people frightened by law abiding citizens who carry guns are people who plan on committing felonies. Fact backed up by only two recorded incidents so far of CCW permit holders ever doing something dumb with their guns.
When I go to the shooting range, I have no fear of anyone going on a rampage and killing everyone with a gun. This daily example shows your argument to be utter hogwash.
>They become afraid that you'll shoot them for cutting them off in traffic.
Well, if that's what it takes for you to stop driving like a dumbass...:)
>You had me up until here, I've been to Thailand and its not the guns that make people safe, in fact the information you have on Thailand is wrong, everyone is not packing. If you believe the teachers have guns then you've never been to Thailand.
>More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants.
>Teachers are often targeted as they are seen as symbols of Thailand's Buddhist authorities.
>"We have granted special rights for teachers to carry guns," deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng told reporters on Tuesday, adding that 2,000 teachers had already requested arms.
Oh SNAP!
>Israel's another story, if Britain were fighting against a war against guerrillas (Scots for arguments sake) then there'd be Royal Marines in every schoolhouse, they're there in Israel because of necessity not choice.
Except in Israel it is parents working as part of a volunteer defense force for schools, not the IDF (though some may also be IDF.)
>Yay mob rulez! >Hang them high! >Might makes right and so on...:)
The criminals seem to think so. But most criminals when confronted with imminent death will either shut down and wait for the police or run away like the devil himself is behind him. A citizen can in the first case place the assailant under citizen's arrest, contact the police, and let them cart the hoodlum off. There is only a very small subset of people in the world that act in a way portrayed by hollywood and attempt to Rambo their way out of a situation. People just want to be safe, and carrying a weapon enables this at no additional expense to anyone but the person buying the gun.
We could of course spend the same amount of money on police as we do our defense budget, but even then, when seconds count and your life is in danger, the police are minutes away. I live under one mile away from the local police station, and it will still take them too long to get to me if someone is kicking in the door of my house and intending to harm me or my family.
So until we perfect phasers with stun settings and set up a minority report style crime prediction system, firearms are the only realistic choice for self defense.
>The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.
Bullshit. Look at states that have enacted shall issue conceal carry permit laws. Violent crime goes down. Look at Illinois, which has the highest "gun control" laws in the nation, and has one of the highest if not the highest rate of gun crime in the USA. This statement of yours was made by the gun control activists in every state where shall issue CC laws were passed. This unintended consequence everyone feared NEVER HAPPENED.
>Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.
Non-lethal weapons have a tendency to not work on everyone. Bullets work on everyone. People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit and those people overall have a very good record of only using lethal force when appropriate.
If you create a non-lethal weapon that does work on everyone with a higher success rate than small arms do, give the police and military a phone call, they'd all be very interested, as would gun owners that carry for self defense.
The majority of their non-safe status can be tied to neighboring countries in both cases. The USA does not have the same external forces pressing on them the way those two countries do.
I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.
Actually, I bet the citizens of Grand Lake, CO probably would agree with you after watching Killdozer blow through their town a few years ago.
Extremes aside, if every citizen was trained with handgun, shotgun, and rifle proficiencies (and allowed to carry where they wished to), just about any violent crime issues could be quickly solved by the local populace. Eventually you run out of criminals or the criminals decide to seek new business opportunities.
Well here, let me use a few more catchphrases for you:
"An armed society is a polite society."
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
And what is wrong with this?
2nd amendment + heller decision = The [individual] right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you want to ensure the security of the States and the Union without giving up essential liberty, logic dicates that you educate citizens in the way of the modern warrior and arm them accordingly.
CPNI approval is used by the telecoms to allow them to treat your entire account (landline, internet, long distance, wireless, etc.) as one account. Without CPNI approval the telecom will treat each one of those things as belonging to separate companies (since the silly laws have made the telecoms into several companies to provide these services.)
>I have bad feet, bad eyes, bad ears, a bad liver, and a bad kidney. Why does that need to be a secret?
Voltran, I've seen your resume and would love to hire you; we have unfortunately found a more qualified applicant. (That is, we saw your medical history and so did the insurance company. We found a lower risk person to hire that will save us more money on our premiums.)
That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
It should be noted that the Declaration is not considered a legal document within the USA, for obvious reasons (reasons obvious to a government entity that does not want states declaring independence anymore, at least).
Now all they need is a bash terminal, wget, vim, locate, grep, tail, touch, top, a package management system (emerge, apt, rpm - not really fussy), more text-based config files instead of a registry...
You can get nearly all of these things for windows already. Well, except the registry, but that will never leave windows.
Slashdot Mirror
>Maybe, just maybe, you should read a few paragraphs of history.
Here, let me crack a history book open for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard
>"Quickly solved by local populace" ... bloody hell, that is why police and court system was "invented".
Where were the police and court systems for the 23 dead, 20 wounded? Oh right, they were the ones that told Suzanna Hupp she couldn't carry her gun in a restaurant. And because she obeyed the law, she got to watch her family die before her eyes.
The same sad story is becoming more common. There were conceal carry permit holders at Vtech who left their guns at home because carrying them could get them expelled or arrested while on campus.
Police and courts are only useful after a mass casualty event has occurred, not before and only sometimes during the event.
>Unfortunately "danger" is in the beholder of the eye.
No. There is a time when lethal force is a legally allowed by civilians in defense. It is the following(slight variations by state and locale, know your laws and this is not legal advice):
"The accepted definition of the justifiable use of deadly force is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. There must clearly be no hope of escaping an attack safely. The attacker must fulfill three conditions to justify a lethal defense on the victim's part:
1. ABILITY - The attacker must have the power to kill or cause crippling injury, or to be advantaged with a disparity of force or a disparity of skill, such as a prizefighter or black-belt karateist (which the victim must know before hand).
2. OPPORTUNITY - The attacker must be capable of employing bodily harm immediately. He must be within range.
3. JEOPARDY - The perpetrator must be acting in such a manner that a reasonably prudent person would assume he intended to attack. "
>it has been proved far too many times that "revenge" is too strong an urge.
Care to back that statement up? Words are only air unless they have facts to back them up.
And by dangers I mean imminent death or grevious injury.
I'm not proposing lynching. I'm proposing that citizens be allowed to react to immediate and unavoidable dangers to themselves or to innocents. Once that danger is avoidable or no longer immediate, lethal force is not an option that citizens who carry guns use.
So yes, I am serious about what I am saying, and no, what you are saying I am saying is not what I am saying or what I was saying. Do you see what I'm saying?
>This one is often repeated, but, much as I like Heinlein, it's simply not true.
It simply IS true. When I see a police officer walk down the street with a gun in a holster, I don't fear him. When I see a civilian do the same, I don't fear him. When I'm at a shooting range with 20+ people, I don't fear any of them.
The only reason you fear them is because of the mainstream media chanting "Guns are BAAAAD" for as long as I remember, and people fear bad things (or things they have been told are bad.)
Fear is the mindkiller.
Once you understand the things you fear, you can let go of the fear, and only you will remain, a wiser person and a safer person.
Firearms accidents are an issue. My proposal which I am putting to local and state groups (and fed, if I can find a receptive crowd in congress) is to put forward a mandatory education system for archaic and modern weapons. Upon graduating from high school in the USA, every man and woman should be proficient with blades, guns, pepper spray, kubotons, and unarmed combat. With everyone proficient in all of these weapons systems, the dangers of firearms accidents would drastically drop.
The only remaining major issue with firearms related deaths happens to be suicide. But suicides will happen regardless, a suicidal person will find a gun, knife, or noose to arrange their own demise. Only through the intervention of family, friends, and as a last resort the state can a person be prevented from taking their own life.
>This is perhaps the dumbest thing the NRA ever said.
Quote by Robert Heinlein, not the NRA.
>An armed society is not, in fact, a polite society but rather it is a frightened society.
Bullshit. The only people frightened by law abiding citizens who carry guns are people who plan on committing felonies. Fact backed up by only two recorded incidents so far of CCW permit holders ever doing something dumb with their guns.
When I go to the shooting range, I have no fear of anyone going on a rampage and killing everyone with a gun. This daily example shows your argument to be utter hogwash.
>They become afraid that you'll shoot them for cutting them off in traffic.
Well, if that's what it takes for you to stop driving like a dumbass... :)
>You had me up until here, I've been to Thailand and its not the guns that make people safe, in fact the information you have on Thailand is wrong, everyone is not packing. If you believe the teachers have guns then you've never been to Thailand.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4651711.stm
Excerpts:
>More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants.
>Teachers are often targeted as they are seen as symbols of Thailand's Buddhist authorities.
>"We have granted special rights for teachers to carry guns," deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng told reporters on Tuesday, adding that 2,000 teachers had already requested arms.
Oh SNAP!
>Israel's another story, if Britain were fighting against a war against guerrillas (Scots for arguments sake) then there'd be Royal Marines in every schoolhouse, they're there in Israel because of necessity not choice.
Except in Israel it is parents working as part of a volunteer defense force for schools, not the IDF (though some may also be IDF.)
>Yay mob rulez! :)
>Hang them high!
>Might makes right and so on...
The criminals seem to think so. But most criminals when confronted with imminent death will either shut down and wait for the police or run away like the devil himself is behind him. A citizen can in the first case place the assailant under citizen's arrest, contact the police, and let them cart the hoodlum off. There is only a very small subset of people in the world that act in a way portrayed by hollywood and attempt to Rambo their way out of a situation. People just want to be safe, and carrying a weapon enables this at no additional expense to anyone but the person buying the gun.
We could of course spend the same amount of money on police as we do our defense budget, but even then, when seconds count and your life is in danger, the police are minutes away. I live under one mile away from the local police station, and it will still take them too long to get to me if someone is kicking in the door of my house and intending to harm me or my family.
So until we perfect phasers with stun settings and set up a minority report style crime prediction system, firearms are the only realistic choice for self defense.
>The law of unintended consequences strikes again. If you tell criminals that everyone is armed and dangerous then they will shoot first. Instead of getting mugged or robbed you will get murdered and looted. Guns will be easier to steal. More crimes of passion will result in death.
Bullshit. Look at states that have enacted shall issue conceal carry permit laws. Violent crime goes down. Look at Illinois, which has the highest "gun control" laws in the nation, and has one of the highest if not the highest rate of gun crime in the USA. This statement of yours was made by the gun control activists in every state where shall issue CC laws were passed. This unintended consequence everyone feared NEVER HAPPENED.
>Furthermore, I wonder why it's so important to score the kill. Why can't you arm yourself with a nonlethal weapon? Is the additional security of a gun really worth the added risk? I suspect that hormones are playing a larger role than reason in the minds of those who feel they need their gun for protection.
Non-lethal weapons have a tendency to not work on everyone. Bullets work on everyone. People who get permits to carry weapons concealed go over the legal uses of lethal force in a class they have to take before they can have said permit and those people overall have a very good record of only using lethal force when appropriate.
If you create a non-lethal weapon that does work on everyone with a higher success rate than small arms do, give the police and military a phone call, they'd all be very interested, as would gun owners that carry for self defense.
The majority of their non-safe status can be tied to neighboring countries in both cases. The USA does not have the same external forces pressing on them the way those two countries do.
YM: "An armed society is a police society."
arm them accordingly.
I really, honestly think bazookas are the best "tool" for modern warrior.
Actually, I bet the citizens of Grand Lake, CO probably would agree with you after watching Killdozer blow through their town a few years ago.
Extremes aside, if every citizen was trained with handgun, shotgun, and rifle proficiencies (and allowed to carry where they wished to), just about any violent crime issues could be quickly solved by the local populace. Eventually you run out of criminals or the criminals decide to seek new business opportunities.
gun cupboard unlocked: Your neighboor shoots the thief running off with your guns. What are neighbors for?
domestic dispute escalation: guns aren't the problem here
lose your job, use gun to renegotiate contract: If the business owner also owns guns, this would be a losing proposition
random rampager: responsible gun owners can solve that too.
Well, since the other choice was the pithy Brady argument of BANINATE EVERYTHING, I'll err on the side of the constitution.
Well here, let me use a few more catchphrases for you:
"An armed society is a polite society."
"When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
And what is wrong with this?
2nd amendment + heller decision = The [individual] right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If you want to ensure the security of the States and the Union without giving up essential liberty, logic dicates that you educate citizens in the way of the modern warrior and arm them accordingly.
No. Read up on Thailand and Israel, where either teachers have guns or armed guards patrol the schools.
The solution to criminals with guns is citizens with guns.
CPNI approval is used by the telecoms to allow them to treat your entire account (landline, internet, long distance, wireless, etc.) as one account. Without CPNI approval the telecom will treat each one of those things as belonging to separate companies (since the silly laws have made the telecoms into several companies to provide these services.)
Indeed. But the point I was making is that odd numbered IPv branches are reserved for testing. That should have been obvious.
IPv9 would be the testing branch. IPv10 would be production.
I really hate just how often Heinlein is right.
>I have bad feet, bad eyes, bad ears, a bad liver, and a bad kidney. Why does that need to be a secret?
Voltran, I've seen your resume and would love to hire you; we have unfortunately found a more qualified applicant. (That is, we saw your medical history and so did the insurance company. We found a lower risk person to hire that will save us more money on our premiums.)
That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
It should be noted that the Declaration is not considered a legal document within the USA, for obvious reasons (reasons obvious to a government entity that does not want states declaring independence anymore, at least).
It isn't a story. It's a point and laugh exhibit.
>Kudos to the Italian government for having the courage to try to tackle one of the most corrupt, terrifying organizations I've ever witnessed.
I'm so confused. I thought Google was God and that Obama was His Prophet?
Now all they need is a bash terminal, wget, vim, locate, grep, tail, touch, top, a package management system (emerge, apt, rpm - not really fussy), more text-based config files instead of a registry...
You can get nearly all of these things for windows already. Well, except the registry, but that will never leave windows.
This combined with his vote on the FISA bill does support that conclusion in a meaningful way, however.
He could have voted no on it, or if he was worried about the backlash of that, he could have voted present or abstained his vote.
But when you look at the record, it is clear where Obama stands on this.