And don't forget all the libertarians who think that making companies label something as GMO is TYRANNY!
Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.
But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.
It's only ironic because it's a strawman argument to begin with.
I would argue that if the product label says "flour", it refers to a power made from one or more specific species of wheat selected from the set of all wheat possible by nature. GM wheat was not created by nature, so it's not wheat it's wheat*. By knowingly selling flour* made from wheat* instead of flour made from wheat, yet labeling it as flour, you're committing fraud.
A free market, complete with free information (which obviously must be legislated: otherwise we would refer to it as "anarchy"), would have both flour and flour* on the shelves. Maybe not in the same quantities, maybe not at the same price, but they'd be there.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals.
There's more than up and down on this issue. Within both up and down there are various types. I apologize for only referring to one specific type.
This line of thinking constitutes a "taking" under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Thus banning guns would require their owners to be compensated.
No problem. Print up a bunch of fiat money C notes for free and hand them out.
Not to mention the fact it would violate the "in common use" statements underlying US vs. Heller. The common, misguided thinking of those who believe making something illegal will somehow enforce compliance.
There are 300 MILLION firearms in private hands in the USA alone. Enough that each was used once and only once in a crime, the criminal supply alone would be met for CENTURIES. Do you honestly believe that people are going to willingly hand over valuable, durable property on the say-so that guns now have to be smart? I wish you luck with that.
What's the true unemployment rate? If such a ban were to happen today, I would estimate 15% of gun owners would comply just to have money in their pocket to feed their family, and maybe an extra 30% because they're good people and respect the law.
For the rest, a government-passive collection will do, much like all those other thousands of laws each of us are in violation of but no one is actively searching. Getting pulled over for speeding? Pat them down and see if you found yourself a violator, bonus reward for the department. Report a break-in? See if there is an obvious gun safe, ammo, reloading equipment in plain view. NRA sticker on your window? Call the judge, probable cause.
They're not even really going to need enforcement agents. Ex-wife wants to get back at her husband? She'll make a call and claim he has a gun. Estate sale after your death? The trustee will be forced to surrender the firearms. Hid it really really well and nobody knows about it or will ever find it? In the end, those folks will probably be the last 5%.
As far as the criminal market goes, the only reason why it exists is because it's in the politicians' interests for it to exist. The shadow of persistent crime makes a great bogeyman to shake in front of voters. If they really wanted to sweep and squash gang bangers, they can. Just look at marshal law after the Boston marathon bombings. Declare marshal law and all peoples' rights go out the window. What are you going to do about it? Leave your house after the curfew order, risk getting heat-seeking drone bombed, and dig up some disassembled gun parts in the dark of night?
I'll consider adopting a smart gun when the police and military do it wholeheartedly first to prove it works. The liability alone in a case where a smart gun goes "Click!" instead of "BANG!" is enough to give lawyers wet dreams of both genders. Guns are simply mechanical objects and derive their reliability from being such. I have 100+ year old rifles that function perfectly fine and are valuable pieces of history.
I wouldn't consider it even if the military and police adopt it. I guarantee such a system would have a "remote disable" feature, and someone else would be holding the keys to that.
How do you retrofit a Mosin-Nagant bolt action? A rifle, by the way, far more powerful than any modern assault rifle.
You tell the truth. What a fun rifle to shoot, buy them by the crate!:)
However, and i am prepared for the uneducated shit storm: No one needs a 30 shot clip. (stop reading here if you agree) No you don't. Shut up you drunk hick. You have no reason, and no rational thought in you head, die in a fire. Stop enabling homegrown terrorist you think you can protect us from. You can't. Also, stop making us the most hated country on earth. Just go away. Forever.
I'm curious what goes through your head that, when you realize you have no logical argument, you decide to start flinging insults is the appropriate response. You might think you're putting me in my place, but you're just showing everyone how butthurt you are.
No one needs that level of stress in their life. Take a vacation, get laid. Your blood pressure will thank you.
I assume they're looking at the police and military market since assault rifles are restricted class III items in the US for civilian ownership and not overly cheap.
Class III items are full-auto, which are police and military weapons.
And they're not expensive because they are inherently more costly. They are expensive because any weapons manufactured after 1986 are still banned for civilian possession. The capped supply, along with the non-liquidity of the weapons themselves due to transfer costs and requirements (including may-issue permission from your local sheriff or police chief, good luck unless you're well connected), are the cause of how expensive they are. A factory fresh military Colt M4 doesn't cost anything more than a consumer Colt M4.
That's fine for TPTB, of course. Because civilians that can afford such expensive toys are doing well enough that they're on the side of the status quo, and aren't exactly going to take up those arms in a revolution when the army will defend that status quo.
How? Police officers being shot with their own guns doesn't happen very often, and has been almost completely solved with a lanyard between the gun and the holster. The people who buy these "smart guns" are not in the same set of parents who leave guns accessible without proper discipline. Most of us who grew up with guns in the house have parents who taught them to handle them responsibly.
That's a false crisis. You can bet that the Smartgun technology to be legislated into effect will contain lock outs that prevents using a weapon within X miles of a designated gun-free zone, prevents use of the weapon during a natural disaster, prevents use of the weapon during a riot or uprising of any kind.
It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...
Like 100+ years? A 1911 from 1911 is still a useable gun, and an early AK47 will still be plenty useable in 2050. I doubt that the biometric grip these guys come up with will last like that, however.
Merely possession of a non-compliant firearm will be a felony, effectively banning the holder from not only their outdated gun, but any other gun in their collection.
So instead of taking guns away from bad people, we should give guns to children? Like the newtown kids?
It's a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between enforcing the laws that keep guns out of the hands of felons / mentally ill and laws that permit good people to make their own choices in self defense.
And no, not "kids". If there was merely one armed and trained teacher or guard on site, the story might have ended differently. Our elected officials don't take that chance with their own lives, banks don't take that chance with their money, nuclear power plants don't take that chance with their dangerous waste.
Hmm...seems this company can't figure out what the problem is....
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them, so then they can then impose the technology on the gun owners against their will by lobbying for laws to require it, which is step 2 of the plan.
Bonus points if they can get the law to require only "certified" smart gun technologies, of which only SGTi will have the required certification.
Ever delivered something which met the formal requirements and had them say "well, that's not what we wanted"?
Which is a huge problem that usually starts from being an Obedient Butler. If the users ask for a ridiculous requirement, you need the experience to be able to not only say it won't work, but why it won't work.
So many are afraid to confront bad requirements, but challenging these things not only reduces the amount of wasted work, but it also shows that you're engaged in solving their problems as if they are your problems as well.
Then again, you've also got Consultant-ware that has a vested interest in implementing bad requirements to a T so they can generate more billable hours later to refactor it.
That's great insight. I remember back maybe 20 years ago when I got my hands on my first Intel based PC and within hours hosed the MBR.
Thankfully, back in those days, they actually came with OS installation diskettes and let me fix my problem. Today they'd probably make me pay $20 and wait two weeks to special order recovery discs.
I hate to be all RTFM about this*, but right-click the recycle bin, go into Properties, and uncheck the "Display delete confirmation dialog" checkbox.
* that's actually a lie, I love being all RTFM about stuff when people talk crap about what Windows does right, as opposed to talking crap about stuff it does wrong and is therefore completely justified.
AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'
I love the way there's always a loophole!
There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.
Of course, no one is going to lawyer up over an extra charge of 61 cents, and, wouldn't you know it, the AT&T contract forces you to waive your right to participate in any class action lawsuit, and any disputes must go through kangaroo-court arbitration.
Funny how all their advertising says "great for games" and such. - which essentially means servers. The routers come with preset firewall/port forwarding rules for lots of specific games and servers - including HTTP and FTP.
It amounts to misleading advertising, especially where bandwidth useage is concerned.
I'd love to know what Google Fiber's policy on this type of thing is.
Advertising is basically the art of lying just enough to trick people into handing you their money instead of someone else, but not so much that law gets in the way.
I used to think this would happen over the next 100 years, but it sounds like it'll be just a generation or two before it does.
In the future, it will become the social norm to expose all your private details in public, where government and industry can scoop it up and record it forever. If you maintain a sense of privacy, you'll be thought of as weird. Why wouldn't you want to declare your love of Oreo brand sandwich cookies and that you're in the 20K - 30K income bracket and in the 18 - 25 female age demographic? Only oddballs would not want the world to see what they're doing, what are they hiding?
If you don't want everyone to know everything, you're already obsolete in the new society.
It's also very much political. Elon Musk's and Tesla's success under this loan program means that it was a Good Idea, and the Republicans don't want ANYTHING that President Obama or the Democrats have been involved in to be considered a success.
Just because this one had a happy ending doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Would Tesla be where they are today without that government loan? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would have gotten an extra infusion of VC. Maybe they could have gotten a private bank loan. Maybe not, and they'd be where they are today next year or the year after next.
The lesson to be learned with Tesla and Soylendra is "you win some, you lose some." Ultimately it's just a gamble with the taxpayer's money, so maybe it shouldn't be gambled with altogether.
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
FWIW you can't interrogate a mass murderer that committed suicide during the spree, so it's pretty obvious there's no data about why they selected where they committed their crimes.
It's a little like trying to find data I ate a grilled cheese sandwich two days ago.
Aside from the fact that the technology doesn't exist... What if I want to let a friend shoot my gun, for example when I was teaching someone to shoot? What if I wanted to try a friend's gun so I could see if I liked it? How about collectible guns? The last firearm I bought was a WWII vintage Finnish rifle. What if I wanted to buy a very-collectable WWII 1911? Would that be legal? It's just another blatant attempt to restrict my constitutional rights. If you want to pass gun control, amend the Constitution. Stop wasting our time with this kind of legislative theater.
All guns should be retrofitted with the biometric checks. That black powder musket must how have a $200 electronic device bolted to it or else you're a mass-murderer. Trying to let a friend use a gun? Nuh uh, you must transfer the gun at an FFL so your friend gets background checked, mental health history checked, political affiliations checked, and a credit check. When he returns it, you must transfer it back to yourself to make sure you didn't become a criminal within that 30 minute period or develop a nervous tick or become an alcoholic.
Anything short of that and you want to murder children.
This is the central problem. For safety, you should keep your guns in a locked gun safe without ammo in them with trigger locks on them. They are completely useless as a self defense item. For them to be useful you need it loaded under your pillow with no trigger lock, but unfortunately this gets you killed by your wife or your mistake. What we need is a compromise between the two.
There are quick-release gun safes available that open quickly with a combination of keypresses. Inside you can store a loaded self defense weapon. Just like the responsibility of handling a weapon, one needs to practice practice practice entering the combination, so it can be done during duress, and to consistently verify the safe functions properly.
Define "sensible". This bill is not "sensible" by any definition I can think of. How about forcing states to add their mental health records to the instant background check database? Less than 30 states currently do. God forbid we violate the privacy of fucking crazy people.
Do you have information on which states do? I'm curious what guidelines they use.
Because the mental illnesses behind psychopathic killer are different from the mental illnesses behind being afraid of crowds, for example.
Parent's point is that there are very few actual accidents and most car deaths are completely preventable by people paying some attention instead of living their lives in a constant haze of confusion and apathy.
Which actually also goes for guns. Proper storage and handling, mental health services, education and economic opportunity, and just plain not trying to rob, rape, intimidate, or threaten others would do great things for preventing the actual gun deaths.
Until they make a robot you can see commiserates with you when you tell him about how you're only there because your wife's mother's in town, or her aunt Flo is visiting and she wants you to go down on her... and convince you he truly understands, and that he's been there himself... the bar tender's job is safe. Also, until a robot can determine you're drunk, and ensure it's not serving booze to an under-age drinker... etc., this is just a toy.
In the era of ubiquitous data mining, all those situations are knowable, and a display or speaker will be able to specially craft the exact phrase you want to hear, but aren't consciously aware of what you want to hear.
Why? You pay so much more than if you just drink at home.
The extra paid is a finders fee to meeting other similarly buzzed people, and perhaps some of them would want to have sex with you before your night is over.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is ironic, because you'd think that consumers being able to choose the products they want based on their own set of criteria would be one of their core values.
But apparently the free market only means companies are free to sell us what they want, not for consumers to decide what we want.
It's only ironic because it's a strawman argument to begin with.
I would argue that if the product label says "flour", it refers to a power made from one or more specific species of wheat selected from the set of all wheat possible by nature. GM wheat was not created by nature, so it's not wheat it's wheat*. By knowingly selling flour* made from wheat* instead of flour made from wheat, yet labeling it as flour, you're committing fraud.
A free market, complete with free information (which obviously must be legislated: otherwise we would refer to it as "anarchy"), would have both flour and flour* on the shelves. Maybe not in the same quantities, maybe not at the same price, but they'd be there.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them
You are now the wikipedia example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Those that support gun disarmament that actually have a clue are not going to contribute to this. They won't contribute to anything that will enable continued gun manufacture. In other words, they don't want guns to be safer, they want them to be gone.
The emotional side of that crowd really believes a safer gun can save lives. Those that wish to force disarmament aren't really interested in the criminal side, obviously, because if they were, they knew abolishment won't get guns out of the hands of criminals.
There's more than up and down on this issue. Within both up and down there are various types. I apologize for only referring to one specific type.
This line of thinking constitutes a "taking" under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Thus banning guns would require their owners to be compensated.
No problem. Print up a bunch of fiat money C notes for free and hand them out.
Not to mention the fact it would violate the "in common use" statements underlying US vs. Heller. The common, misguided thinking of those who believe making something illegal will somehow enforce compliance.
There are 300 MILLION firearms in private hands in the USA alone. Enough that each was used once and only once in a crime, the criminal supply alone would be met for CENTURIES. Do you honestly believe that people are going to willingly hand over valuable, durable property on the say-so that guns now have to be smart? I wish you luck with that.
What's the true unemployment rate? If such a ban were to happen today, I would estimate 15% of gun owners would comply just to have money in their pocket to feed their family, and maybe an extra 30% because they're good people and respect the law.
For the rest, a government-passive collection will do, much like all those other thousands of laws each of us are in violation of but no one is actively searching. Getting pulled over for speeding? Pat them down and see if you found yourself a violator, bonus reward for the department. Report a break-in? See if there is an obvious gun safe, ammo, reloading equipment in plain view. NRA sticker on your window? Call the judge, probable cause.
They're not even really going to need enforcement agents. Ex-wife wants to get back at her husband? She'll make a call and claim he has a gun. Estate sale after your death? The trustee will be forced to surrender the firearms. Hid it really really well and nobody knows about it or will ever find it? In the end, those folks will probably be the last 5%.
As far as the criminal market goes, the only reason why it exists is because it's in the politicians' interests for it to exist. The shadow of persistent crime makes a great bogeyman to shake in front of voters. If they really wanted to sweep and squash gang bangers, they can. Just look at marshal law after the Boston marathon bombings. Declare marshal law and all peoples' rights go out the window. What are you going to do about it? Leave your house after the curfew order, risk getting heat-seeking drone bombed, and dig up some disassembled gun parts in the dark of night?
I'll consider adopting a smart gun when the police and military do it wholeheartedly first to prove it works. The liability alone in a case where a smart gun goes "Click!" instead of "BANG!" is enough to give lawyers wet dreams of both genders. Guns are simply mechanical objects and derive their reliability from being such. I have 100+ year old rifles that function perfectly fine and are valuable pieces of history.
I wouldn't consider it even if the military and police adopt it. I guarantee such a system would have a "remote disable" feature, and someone else would be holding the keys to that.
How do you retrofit a Mosin-Nagant bolt action? A rifle, by the way, far more powerful than any modern assault rifle.
You tell the truth. What a fun rifle to shoot, buy them by the crate! :)
However, and i am prepared for the uneducated shit storm: No one needs a 30 shot clip. (stop reading here if you agree) No you don't. Shut up you drunk hick. You have no reason, and no rational thought in you head, die in a fire. Stop enabling homegrown terrorist you think you can protect us from. You can't. Also, stop making us the most hated country on earth. Just go away. Forever.
I'm curious what goes through your head that, when you realize you have no logical argument, you decide to start flinging insults is the appropriate response. You might think you're putting me in my place, but you're just showing everyone how butthurt you are.
No one needs that level of stress in their life. Take a vacation, get laid. Your blood pressure will thank you.
I assume they're looking at the police and military market since assault rifles are restricted class III items in the US for civilian ownership and not overly cheap.
Class III items are full-auto, which are police and military weapons.
And they're not expensive because they are inherently more costly. They are expensive because any weapons manufactured after 1986 are still banned for civilian possession. The capped supply, along with the non-liquidity of the weapons themselves due to transfer costs and requirements (including may-issue permission from your local sheriff or police chief, good luck unless you're well connected), are the cause of how expensive they are. A factory fresh military Colt M4 doesn't cost anything more than a consumer Colt M4.
That's fine for TPTB, of course. Because civilians that can afford such expensive toys are doing well enough that they're on the side of the status quo, and aren't exactly going to take up those arms in a revolution when the army will defend that status quo.
How? Police officers being shot with their own guns doesn't happen very often, and has been almost completely solved with a lanyard between the gun and the holster. The people who buy these "smart guns" are not in the same set of parents who leave guns accessible without proper discipline. Most of us who grew up with guns in the house have parents who taught them to handle them responsibly.
That's a false crisis. You can bet that the Smartgun technology to be legislated into effect will contain lock outs that prevents using a weapon within X miles of a designated gun-free zone, prevents use of the weapon during a natural disaster, prevents use of the weapon during a riot or uprising of any kind.
It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...
Like 100+ years? A 1911 from 1911 is still a useable gun, and an early AK47 will still be plenty useable in 2050. I doubt that the biometric grip these guys come up with will last like that, however.
Merely possession of a non-compliant firearm will be a felony, effectively banning the holder from not only their outdated gun, but any other gun in their collection.
So instead of taking guns away from bad people, we should give guns to children? Like the newtown kids?
It's a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between enforcing the laws that keep guns out of the hands of felons / mentally ill and laws that permit good people to make their own choices in self defense.
And no, not "kids". If there was merely one armed and trained teacher or guard on site, the story might have ended differently. Our elected officials don't take that chance with their own lives, banks don't take that chance with their money, nuclear power plants don't take that chance with their dangerous waste.
Hmm...seems this company can't figure out what the problem is....
That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.
A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.
It sounds like they just figured out who their customers really are. It's not the gun owner, it's the gun opposition.
The campaign is a call to arms (pardon the pun) for the clueless, emotional, never-took-history masses to fund them, so then they can then impose the technology on the gun owners against their will by lobbying for laws to require it, which is step 2 of the plan.
Bonus points if they can get the law to require only "certified" smart gun technologies, of which only SGTi will have the required certification.
Ever delivered something which met the formal requirements and had them say "well, that's not what we wanted"?
Which is a huge problem that usually starts from being an Obedient Butler. If the users ask for a ridiculous requirement, you need the experience to be able to not only say it won't work, but why it won't work.
So many are afraid to confront bad requirements, but challenging these things not only reduces the amount of wasted work, but it also shows that you're engaged in solving their problems as if they are your problems as well.
Then again, you've also got Consultant-ware that has a vested interest in implementing bad requirements to a T so they can generate more billable hours later to refactor it.
It is always somebody's first day.
That's great insight. I remember back maybe 20 years ago when I got my hands on my first Intel based PC and within hours hosed the MBR.
Thankfully, back in those days, they actually came with OS installation diskettes and let me fix my problem. Today they'd probably make me pay $20 and wait two weeks to special order recovery discs.
I hate to be all RTFM about this*, but right-click the recycle bin, go into Properties, and uncheck the "Display delete confirmation dialog" checkbox.
* that's actually a lie, I love being all RTFM about stuff when people talk crap about what Windows does right, as opposed to talking crap about stuff it does wrong and is therefore completely justified.
AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'
I love the way there's always a loophole!
There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.
Of course, no one is going to lawyer up over an extra charge of 61 cents, and, wouldn't you know it, the AT&T contract forces you to waive your right to participate in any class action lawsuit, and any disputes must go through kangaroo-court arbitration.
Thanks, Supreme Court!
Funny how all their advertising says "great for games" and such. - which essentially means servers. The routers come with preset firewall/port forwarding rules for lots of specific games and servers - including HTTP and FTP.
It amounts to misleading advertising, especially where bandwidth useage is concerned.
I'd love to know what Google Fiber's policy on this type of thing is.
Advertising is basically the art of lying just enough to trick people into handing you their money instead of someone else, but not so much that law gets in the way.
I used to think this would happen over the next 100 years, but it sounds like it'll be just a generation or two before it does.
In the future, it will become the social norm to expose all your private details in public, where government and industry can scoop it up and record it forever. If you maintain a sense of privacy, you'll be thought of as weird. Why wouldn't you want to declare your love of Oreo brand sandwich cookies and that you're in the 20K - 30K income bracket and in the 18 - 25 female age demographic? Only oddballs would not want the world to see what they're doing, what are they hiding?
If you don't want everyone to know everything, you're already obsolete in the new society.
It's also very much political. Elon Musk's and Tesla's success under this loan program means that it was a Good Idea, and the Republicans don't want ANYTHING that President Obama or the Democrats have been involved in to be considered a success.
Just because this one had a happy ending doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Would Tesla be where they are today without that government loan? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would have gotten an extra infusion of VC. Maybe they could have gotten a private bank loan. Maybe not, and they'd be where they are today next year or the year after next.
The lesson to be learned with Tesla and Soylendra is "you win some, you lose some." Ultimately it's just a gamble with the taxpayer's money, so maybe it shouldn't be gambled with altogether.
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
FWIW you can't interrogate a mass murderer that committed suicide during the spree, so it's pretty obvious there's no data about why they selected where they committed their crimes.
It's a little like trying to find data I ate a grilled cheese sandwich two days ago.
Aside from the fact that the technology doesn't exist... What if I want to let a friend shoot my gun, for example when I was teaching someone to shoot? What if I wanted to try a friend's gun so I could see if I liked it? How about collectible guns? The last firearm I bought was a WWII vintage Finnish rifle. What if I wanted to buy a very-collectable WWII 1911? Would that be legal? It's just another blatant attempt to restrict my constitutional rights. If you want to pass gun control, amend the Constitution. Stop wasting our time with this kind of legislative theater.
All guns should be retrofitted with the biometric checks. That black powder musket must how have a $200 electronic device bolted to it or else you're a mass-murderer. Trying to let a friend use a gun? Nuh uh, you must transfer the gun at an FFL so your friend gets background checked, mental health history checked, political affiliations checked, and a credit check. When he returns it, you must transfer it back to yourself to make sure you didn't become a criminal within that 30 minute period or develop a nervous tick or become an alcoholic.
Anything short of that and you want to murder children.
This is the central problem. For safety, you should keep your guns in a locked gun safe without ammo in them with trigger locks on them. They are completely useless as a self defense item. For them to be useful you need it loaded under your pillow with no trigger lock, but unfortunately this gets you killed by your wife or your mistake. What we need is a compromise between the two.
There are quick-release gun safes available that open quickly with a combination of keypresses. Inside you can store a loaded self defense weapon. Just like the responsibility of handling a weapon, one needs to practice practice practice entering the combination, so it can be done during duress, and to consistently verify the safe functions properly.
Define "sensible". This bill is not "sensible" by any definition I can think of. How about forcing states to add their mental health records to the instant background check database? Less than 30 states currently do. God forbid we violate the privacy of fucking crazy people.
Do you have information on which states do? I'm curious what guidelines they use.
Because the mental illnesses behind psychopathic killer are different from the mental illnesses behind being afraid of crowds, for example.
Parent's point is that there are very few actual accidents and most car deaths are completely preventable by people paying some attention instead of living their lives in a constant haze of confusion and apathy.
Which actually also goes for guns. Proper storage and handling, mental health services, education and economic opportunity, and just plain not trying to rob, rape, intimidate, or threaten others would do great things for preventing the actual gun deaths.
I'd rather have food pills that the future promised 60 years ago.
The USA has a lot of military power, but it's yet to be proven that they have a military that's willing to act against it's own citizens.
Ahahaha, no. All you have to do is call the citizen a terrorist, then it's Bombs Away No Holds Barred No Due Process Federal Detention Camp Fun Hour.
Until they make a robot you can see commiserates with you when you tell him about how you're only there because your wife's mother's in town, or her aunt Flo is visiting and she wants you to go down on her... and convince you he truly understands, and that he's been there himself... the bar tender's job is safe. Also, until a robot can determine you're drunk, and ensure it's not serving booze to an under-age drinker... etc., this is just a toy.
In the era of ubiquitous data mining, all those situations are knowable, and a display or speaker will be able to specially craft the exact phrase you want to hear, but aren't consciously aware of what you want to hear.
Why? You pay so much more than if you just drink at home.
The extra paid is a finders fee to meeting other similarly buzzed people, and perhaps some of them would want to have sex with you before your night is over.