A hundred million men with "assault rifles" can protect this country from threats foreign and domestic. A hundred million disarmed men can not. Your idiotic attempts to derail the conversation have no merit. If you don't like living in an armed country, I invite you to move to the UK where you can be anally raped by hooligans before being knifed and left to die in a gutter. The NHS will save you. Eventually. When they get to it. But only after you pick up the litter as directed by the talking cameras.
Why not take a few more common sense steps to reduce violence? We could make it illegal to wear clothing in order to make sure no-one can conceal a weapon. We could make everyone walk around in shackles with their hands behind their back, so they can't seize a weapon from a police officer and start killing people. Etc etc.
You keep "trying" and the state grows ever larger and more repressive as a result. Your good intentions have brought us to the very gates of Hell. Thanks.
Yes, and we need to build a dome out of solid diamond to defend against meteor strikes.
A meteor strike could kill the entire population!
I wonder if you realize that you are shedding all semblence of being a free society not to mention spending money you don't have in order to protect yourself against an event that is about 1/1000th as likely as falling to your death in your bathroom?
Getting killed in a spree killing is sort of like getting killed in a lightning strike. It's so rare it's not really worth considering. However, the likelihood of getting mugged is quite high, and will increase greatly now that the muggers know that their victims won't be armed. They can even assault you with inferior weapons with little danger to themselves, as they can simply target the weak. Previously, a little old lady could kill several thugs with a handgun. Now, she can't.
People need to understand that life does not have infinite value. If it did, no-one would go to war to throw off the chains of their oppressors. The US wouldn't exist, and slavery would still be practiced everywhere.
The remaining weapons become much more lethal after a ban is passed, as the criminals don't turn their in, and now they know it is open season.
Not to mention that even after all the guns are gone, the general level of violent crime remains higher in perpetuity, as has been shown in the UK, where hooligans roam the streets with near impunity.
It would *APPEAR* to take exponentially more time to an *OUTSIDE OBSERVER*.
When dealing with ships capable of going the speed of light, things would almost never be as they appear. At least not until some time after they slow down.
The UK has an enormous amount of violent crime, and one should not feel safe in many places there even during the day. It's not like the UK is Sierra Leon or something, but it isn't much better than the US, if at all.
Most people work on assumptions, and fall prey to correspondence bias. You hear about mass shootings every time they happen, but you barely ever hear about not mass shootings, which happen all day every day except for once in a long while. Before you run about trying to destroy a document that has worked quite well for more than 200 years, you should take a few minutes to examine your own biases.
Compare violent crime in the US: 475 per 100,000 residents in 2003 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html)
To the violent crime rate in the UK: 4100 per 100,000 residents in 2003 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf)
Now, the US has four times as many murders per capita, but those numbers are quite skewed by major cities. Major cities, oddly enough, with highly restrictive gun policies. I wonder if those rates would come down if citizens were allowed guns, rather than just the criminals?
My reading of all this is that yes, the US could get a lower murder rate by banning all guns, but it would take many decades until most of them are off the streets. That would just leave us with a much higher general crime rate. Note that the State of Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, and their murder rate is 2.6 per 100K, on par with that of the UK at 2.0 per 100K.
Note I said "sized", which meant to imply size of population, not just size of country. The point stands, no matter how much you don't want it to. Sort of like how "shall not be infringed" means exactly that, no matter how much you don't want it to, and systematic violation of that means systematic violation of the rest of the document will follow, if it didn't precede it.
But that is still less dangerous than swimming pools, yet there is no uproar or outrage over that. Why aren't we implementing swimming pool regulation? Do swimming pool owners really have any business not fencing their pools? Given that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, we really ought to direct our focus elsewhere.
You really ought to normalize your numbers for population. The US is a pretty big country, and there are a lot of other countries where I would feel a lot less comfortable about walking down the street at night, or worse, having a woman walk down the street at night.
Divide the number of switzerland sized areas in the US and you will find plenty that have had less mass shootings than Switzerland. These things don't happen every day. At least, not when it isn't convenient to the agendas of politicians. A coincidence I find quite disturbing, honestly.
Seems more likely that the cause for the difference is the lack of swimming pools in Switzerland, which are more likely to kill a member of their owners family than a firearm.
But hey, let's not let perspective keep us from wiping our asses with our founding documents.
Yes, those two aren't equal. That doesn't mean that we aren't going to be both things, however.
Of course, one of the easier ways to solve the Rar Earth Shortage would be to develop thorium technology. Not only would it provide the energy needed to mine and process the metals, it would create a use for what is currently a big stumbling block to rare earth production--contamination with thorium, which is mostly just a costly contaminant with few uses.
Eh? I think you have the concept of "natural market forces" exactly backwards. Minimum wages and government imposed healthcare costs are not natural market forces, nor are demands from organizations that have government-granted special statuses (ie unions). However, robots are capital costs, which is a concept that falls squarely within the realm of natural market forces.
Slashdot Mirror
A hundred million men with "assault rifles" can protect this country from threats foreign and domestic. A hundred million disarmed men can not. Your idiotic attempts to derail the conversation have no merit. If you don't like living in an armed country, I invite you to move to the UK where you can be anally raped by hooligans before being knifed and left to die in a gutter. The NHS will save you. Eventually. When they get to it. But only after you pick up the litter as directed by the talking cameras.
The Germans probably thought the same thing. But national "emergency" trumps the special interests of evil gun-owners.
Step one is always to disarm the populace. With an armed populace, the government can only become so oppressive.
Why not take a few more common sense steps to reduce violence? We could make it illegal to wear clothing in order to make sure no-one can conceal a weapon. We could make everyone walk around in shackles with their hands behind their back, so they can't seize a weapon from a police officer and start killing people. Etc etc.
You keep "trying" and the state grows ever larger and more repressive as a result. Your good intentions have brought us to the very gates of Hell. Thanks.
Yes, and we need to build a dome out of solid diamond to defend against meteor strikes.
A meteor strike could kill the entire population!
I wonder if you realize that you are shedding all semblence of being a free society not to mention spending money you don't have in order to protect yourself against an event that is about 1/1000th as likely as falling to your death in your bathroom?
Uh-huh. Tell that to Norway. Three years isn't enough time to cool off?
Probably by 100%, as no shooter would have picked a target that can fight back.
If guns cause violence, where are the gun range mass shootings? They should be happening every single day.
Tides could be illegal, but they would still exist. Making explosives from common household (or farm) ingredients is the norm.
Getting killed in a spree killing is sort of like getting killed in a lightning strike. It's so rare it's not really worth considering. However, the likelihood of getting mugged is quite high, and will increase greatly now that the muggers know that their victims won't be armed. They can even assault you with inferior weapons with little danger to themselves, as they can simply target the weak. Previously, a little old lady could kill several thugs with a handgun. Now, she can't.
People need to understand that life does not have infinite value. If it did, no-one would go to war to throw off the chains of their oppressors. The US wouldn't exist, and slavery would still be practiced everywhere.
The remaining weapons become much more lethal after a ban is passed, as the criminals don't turn their in, and now they know it is open season.
Not to mention that even after all the guns are gone, the general level of violent crime remains higher in perpetuity, as has been shown in the UK, where hooligans roam the streets with near impunity.
It would *APPEAR* to take exponentially more time to an *OUTSIDE OBSERVER*.
When dealing with ships capable of going the speed of light, things would almost never be as they appear. At least not until some time after they slow down.
The UK has an enormous amount of violent crime, and one should not feel safe in many places there even during the day. It's not like the UK is Sierra Leon or something, but it isn't much better than the US, if at all.
Most people work on assumptions, and fall prey to correspondence bias. You hear about mass shootings every time they happen, but you barely ever hear about not mass shootings, which happen all day every day except for once in a long while. Before you run about trying to destroy a document that has worked quite well for more than 200 years, you should take a few minutes to examine your own biases.
Compare violent crime in the US: 475 per 100,000 residents in 2003 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html)
To the violent crime rate in the UK: 4100 per 100,000 residents in 2003 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf)
Now, the US has four times as many murders per capita, but those numbers are quite skewed by major cities. Major cities, oddly enough, with highly restrictive gun policies. I wonder if those rates would come down if citizens were allowed guns, rather than just the criminals?
My reading of all this is that yes, the US could get a lower murder rate by banning all guns, but it would take many decades until most of them are off the streets. That would just leave us with a much higher general crime rate. Note that the State of Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, and their murder rate is 2.6 per 100K, on par with that of the UK at 2.0 per 100K.
Wow, so it's the victim's fault?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Note I said "sized", which meant to imply size of population, not just size of country. The point stands, no matter how much you don't want it to. Sort of like how "shall not be infringed" means exactly that, no matter how much you don't want it to, and systematic violation of that means systematic violation of the rest of the document will follow, if it didn't precede it.
Blah blah constitutional rights blah blah slippery slope blah blah anal rape by g-men on the streetcorner blah blah blah.
But that is still less dangerous than swimming pools, yet there is no uproar or outrage over that. Why aren't we implementing swimming pool regulation? Do swimming pool owners really have any business not fencing their pools? Given that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, we really ought to direct our focus elsewhere.
You really ought to normalize your numbers for population. The US is a pretty big country, and there are a lot of other countries where I would feel a lot less comfortable about walking down the street at night, or worse, having a woman walk down the street at night.
Divide the number of switzerland sized areas in the US and you will find plenty that have had less mass shootings than Switzerland. These things don't happen every day. At least, not when it isn't convenient to the agendas of politicians. A coincidence I find quite disturbing, honestly.
Seems more likely that the cause for the difference is the lack of swimming pools in Switzerland, which are more likely to kill a member of their owners family than a firearm.
But hey, let's not let perspective keep us from wiping our asses with our founding documents.
Yes, because the Mojave Desert is just TEEMING with life. Fragile, easily destroyable life.
You think recycling is free? You think recycling doesn't pollute?
Might want to think a bit on that.
Rare earths aren't actually rare. It will be a few thousand years before we run out, and recycling will come into play a long time before that.
FYI, the Oil Drum is full of Malthusian fools who have done nothing but cry "PEAK OIL!" since day one.
Yes, those two aren't equal. That doesn't mean that we aren't going to be both things, however.
Of course, one of the easier ways to solve the Rar Earth Shortage would be to develop thorium technology. Not only would it provide the energy needed to mine and process the metals, it would create a use for what is currently a big stumbling block to rare earth production--contamination with thorium, which is mostly just a costly contaminant with few uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Can you spot the difference?
Eh? I think you have the concept of "natural market forces" exactly backwards. Minimum wages and government imposed healthcare costs are not natural market forces, nor are demands from organizations that have government-granted special statuses (ie unions). However, robots are capital costs, which is a concept that falls squarely within the realm of natural market forces.