5 ms·
::slow clap:: It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality in the 21st century. The faster we can transition to clean, renewab
by ericfrenkiel 9y ago
::slow clap::
It is absolutely appalling that this type of backwardness is still a reality in the 21st century.
The faster we can transition to clean, renewable energy, the better for everyone in the world.
- rconti 9y agoMy favorite example is the South Carolina law that was finally rescinded a few years back, where bars had to serve their mixed alcoholic drinks with liquor poured from single-serving 'airline' style bottles. A colossal waste of time and resources, but the kicker was the arguments against rescinding the law-- some folks arguing that DUI rates would go through the roof and The Children (TM) would all die, and others arguing that bartenders would rip off patrons with 'short pours'. All without a single thought to stop and consider the example of the other 49 states, not to mention other countries...
- Forbo 9y agoYou should take a look at Utah's liquor laws some time. Perfect example of what happens when people who don't drink decide to legislate alcohol.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gamad 9y agoOh, they drink!
- knz 9y agoLaws related to firearms are often similar. The current example is the effort to make suppressors more available. Those opposed are already pushing tales of dramatically increasing crime rates and poaching instead of acknowledging that even suppressed firearms are still very loud or that many other OECD countries (which have more strict regulation) allow or even encourage the use of suppressors. The sad part about using fear to support or oppose change is that you rarely end up with solutions that actually solve the underlying societal problem via a sensible compromise.
- ufo 9y agoWhy do some countries encourage the use of suppressors?
- xoa 9y agoI can't speak for those countries, but I wish my state would encourage or even require them as a matter of politeness, quality of life and public health. Suppressed guns are less of a noise nuisance to neighbors/other land users, disturb wildlife to a lesser degree, and are much safer for hearing. In the case of small calibers they can eliminate the need for separate hearing protection which increases situational awareness and thus safety. They also increase accuracy of course (longer barrel). They are expensive, but not prohibitively so imo. It's unfortunate the movie/TV industry really seems to have poisoned the well a bit there.
- aparks517 9y agoNeighborliness and hearing protection are the reasons I've heard.
- korethr 9y agoThink about it. The threshold for potential instant noise-induced hearing loss is 120 dB SPL at the ear. A rifle can exceed 170 dB SPL at a distance of one meter[1]. When you're shooting a rifle, it's going to be cradled firmly against the shoulder -- a lot closer than 1 meter. Even the lowly .22lr fired from a handgun can exceed 160 dB SPL[2]. A suppressor can knock that down about 30 dB. 130 dB is still a lot, but it's out of the 'will-immedately-and-permanently-damage-your-hearing' range at least, and makes further hearing protection (earmuffs, earplugs) that much more effective. tl;dr - A suppressor is safety equipment. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sou... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Effectiveness
- jcrben 9y agoMaybe it should be a thing for the gun range then. Require people to attach them there and require that they leave them there. In general, if people are shooting outside in my neighborhood, I'd rather be woken up. That's not the type of thing that should go unnoticed. And I live in the middle of San Franciso where I've watched people get shot and killed.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago>...and The Children (TM) would all die... All the people from CA who chucked when they read this should consider the pot and kettle relationship.
- lucaspiller 9y agoJust wait until the 22nd century. People will wonder how crazy we were to allow humans full control of a two tonne chunk of steel, where a lapse of concentration for a few seconds could easily kill themselves and others. And let’s not even begin to think about it being propelled by controlled ignition of highly flammable fluids...
- scott_karana 9y agoWe don't look back harshly at steam trains. They did the best they could with what they had. (If anything, there's strong nostalgia!) Why do you think petrol will be different? Electric is only marginally viable now, more than a century after internal combustion's invention.
- colechristensen 9y agoThere are still groups of humans living relatively or completely unconnected from the world that wouldn't seem out of place 10,000 years ago. It's not exactly appalling that societies that don't respect basic freedoms exist, it's appalling that they're allowed to participate at all in the global economy and society. << insert picture of Saudi prince and president shaking hands >>
- adam_seeliger 9y agoThere is no such thing as a clean, renewable energy. It's a myth. Moron.