4 ms·

Also much harder if not impossible to use for the physically weaker, e.g. women, the older, elderly and disabled (who just happened to make up most of my Missou

by hga 11y ago

Also much harder if not impossible to use for the physically weaker, e.g. women, the older, elderly and disabled (who just happened to make up most of my Missouri required concealed carry license class; BTW, 5% of the age eligible adults in my county have one). Makes gay bashing a much iffier proposition in most of the country: http://www.pinkpistols.org/ http://www.pinkpistols.org/ As for the problems with "4 year olds", well, since I've been keeping track of the statistics in the '80s, both the population and number of guns owned by it have increased by very roughly 50%, while the absolute number of official fatal gun accidents has dropped by 25%. Is this a problem? Sure, but not as big as swimming pools, buckets before a major effort was made there, etc. etc. As for those unarmed police, that they're backed up by armed police/paramilitaries and the military means something, yes? Getting back to the topic at hand, why not kneecap all digital audio technology like DAT was? Heck, the RIAA was proposing to require all Analog to Digital Converters (ADC) to have circuitry that would cause them to stop working when they perceived a watermark (!). ADDED: Heck, why wasn't there any DRM on CDs, besides them being developed outside the US? Here's some history following them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Retric 11y ago
Even very low draw weight bows can be deadly weapons especially with neurotoxin's, but we could add a dispensation for the truly enfeebled to use crossbows. (but enough joking around.) Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Overall, I am fairly neutral on the gun issue. I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. IMO, we let people drive cars with minimal licensing and take that right away when abused, it seems like guns should follow a similar approach. As to music I really don't care. End copyright, require DRM, outlaw DRM, or even outlaw music, it really does not matter to me.
- cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
  >I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. Well, there are several federal[0] and many state[1] gun regulations on the books, so I don't know where you get the idea that gun ownership has no oversight. Further, in the Heller decision, Scalia writes: >There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.... >Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_...
  - Retric 11y ago
    You’re thinking of negative management, it's presumed that everyone can buy a gun and they lose that right. Positive management would require someone to demonstrate competence ahead of a purchase ex: by taking a class / passing a test etc.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Yes, but proficiency has sadly been removed from my state's permit requirements.
- hga 11y ago
  Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Nope, that can't be the statistic you're thinking of, since the "in defense" is well over a million annually (first survey, by gun grabbers, did not count how many times per year) to well over 2 million (later studies focusing on this). Obviously a bare, bare fraction of gun owners are killing themselves with their own guns (you only get large numbers including suicides, and guns clearly aren't significant in that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...), let alone by losing them to criminals in combat, which is very rare. You're probably thinking of the Kellerman study, which scored successful self-defense uses only as killing the criminal. Which is not even a legal objective, lethal force to stop is, to kill is reserved to the judiciary. The vast majority of gun self-defense instances (like > 80%, maybe 90%) don't even involve a gun being fired. Getting back to our topic, I get the strong impression that the statistics produced by the RIAA et. al. are as bad as those produced by the gun grabbers. Except they don't get published as Revealed Truth in the NEJM, JAMA, etc.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Your counting events where someone was not at significant risk for death as saving their life. To get an accurate comparison you need to compare gun owners mortality with non gun owners mortality.

by hga 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Even very low draw weight bows can be deadly weapons especially with neurotoxin's, but we could add a dispensation for the truly enfeebled to use crossbows. (but enough joking around.) Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Overall, I am fairly neutral on the gun issue. I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. IMO, we let people drive cars with minimal licensing and take that right away when abused, it seems like guns should follow a similar approach. As to music I really don't care. End copyright, require DRM, outlaw DRM, or even outlaw music, it really does not matter to me.

cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
>I just don't see a clear defense for mass gun ownership without oversight though. Well, there are several federal[0] and many state[1] gun regulations on the books, so I don't know where you get the idea that gun ownership has no oversight. Further, in the Heller decision, Scalia writes: >There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.... >Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_...
- Retric 11y ago
  You’re thinking of negative management, it's presumed that everyone can buy a gun and they lose that right. Positive management would require someone to demonstrate competence ahead of a purchase ex: by taking a class / passing a test etc.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Yes, but proficiency has sadly been removed from my state's permit requirements.
hga 11y ago
Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Nope, that can't be the statistic you're thinking of, since the "in defense" is well over a million annually (first survey, by gun grabbers, did not count how many times per year) to well over 2 million (later studies focusing on this). Obviously a bare, bare fraction of gun owners are killing themselves with their own guns (you only get large numbers including suicides, and guns clearly aren't significant in that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...), let alone by losing them to criminals in combat, which is very rare. You're probably thinking of the Kellerman study, which scored successful self-defense uses only as killing the criminal. Which is not even a legal objective, lethal force to stop is, to kill is reserved to the judiciary. The vast majority of gun self-defense instances (like > 80%, maybe 90%) don't even involve a gun being fired. Getting back to our topic, I get the strong impression that the statistics produced by the RIAA et. al. are as bad as those produced by the gun grabbers. Except they don't get published as Revealed Truth in the NEJM, JAMA, etc.
- Retric 11y ago
  Your counting events where someone was not at significant risk for death as saving their life. To get an accurate comparison you need to compare gun owners mortality with non gun owners mortality.