Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 573

You are making the assumption that no one openly carrying can be a threat.

No I'm not. I'm stating the fact that anyone open carrying is someone you know for a fact is armed. I am then arguing that the perosn you know for a fact is armed is less of a potential threat than someone who MIGHT be armed. The greatest threat is always the threat you can't identify.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 573

I don't want to see all the long gun carrying peacocks strutting and getting in my face to remind me of my rights that I don't care about. I don't want to own a gun, but I don't want to stop other people from owning them if they want one and can own it responsibly.

As a gun owner, to me the "long gun carrying peacocks" as you put it are not responsibly owning their firearms. There is no need in society for someone to be walking around with an assault rifle. The first priority in gun ownership and gun safety is responsibility. That means storing them appropriately, always treating them as if they are loaded, don't point them at anything you don't want to shoot, and most importantly, don't treat them as a toy or "accessory". Carrying a firearm in public is supposed to be about personal safety, and unless the local Chipotle or Starbucks have turned as dangerous as Kabul or Mosul, there is no need to be carrying around a long gun in public. Hell, I have a concealed carry permit and I don't even carry my little 7-shot .22, much less my 15-round 9mm or my AR-15. As I said in a post further down, I equate these idiots with the people trying to 3D print guns on the steps of the Texas state capital: by irresponsibly "exercising their rights" they are doing more harm than good.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2, Insightful) 573

Because someone *isn't* going to corneal their weapon....

Most gun owners are lawful gun owners. If the law requires open carry, then those carrying openly are probably not a threat to you. Anyone still carrying concealed more likely is. It's like making schools and other places gun free zones: if a person is already planning to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) then tacking on one more illegal act isn't a big deterrent. The only ones affected by the law are those that actually follow it.

Comment Re:Kudos to 2nd Amendment activists! (Score 1) 573

Because a right not exercised is a right lost .

Then buy a gun at a local gun store (supporting small local business, yay America!), or if you really feel ambitious, get a CNC machine and 80% milled receiver blank. 3D printing a crappy gun out of cheap plastic that is more likely to hurt the shooter than any target out in public is a publicity stunt that is more likely to increase regulation of home manufactured firearms and 3D printing in general than anything else. This is akin to those idiots who felt the need to walk around with AR-15s and AK-47s slung over their shoulders and go into restaurants and other public places. Rights should be exercised, yes. But the 2nd Amendment is different as it is the only one that should be exercised responsibly, since it is the only one that can actually kill or injure.

Comment Huh? (Score 3, Informative) 573

It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.

You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.

Comment Re:I think its gonna be a long long time (Score 4, Interesting) 105

Why send/land everything at once anyway? Send living/experimentation modules and any needed non-perishable supplies or equipment such as vehicles on previous missions. Then send in a manned mission with perishable supplies/experiment subjects (seeds, plants, animals, whatever) afterwards. This allows for smaller payloads that can land easier, and has the added benefit of being easier to launch from Earth. It also gives you the chance to resend any critical supplies should one of the landings go wrong or land really off course.

Comment Re:too expensive (Score 5, Informative) 48

You need shelter for the aircraft (hangars), storage for fuel and other consumables (ammunition, film/data storage, etc), repair facilities and their associated storage requirements, facilities for the personnel assigned to the base (at the very least breakrooms and bathrooms, not to mention workspaces and command/control facilities, and probably housing as well-which comes with its own needs), a control tower with both visual and equipment navigation, and of course security personnel and the related infrastructure needed to secure and patrol a secure-access facility. I don't think 10 grand and an old KMart would be able to supply all of those things.

Comment Re:Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 461

won't need to be on the grid here

Don't worry, they'll almost certainly add being connected to the grid to be a mandatory part of the housing code or something.

The local trash monopoly did something similar. Trash service is about $60 a month,

That alone is ridiculous. Where I live, I pay about $9.50 a month, and that includes trash, recyclables, and lawn clippings within reason.

Comment Re:In Reverse (Score 1) 75

I actually suspect that the majority of life - and intelligent life - in the universe is probably ocean-based. If ever space aliens visit us, unlike the movies, I suspect their spaceships may be more likely to be like sealed aquariums than an air-breathing setup. I've never seen this idea reflected in science fiction though.

In the later books of the Lost Fleet series, they come across an alien race that is aquatic, with ships that are much more maneuverable than human ships. They theorized that the ships were in fact filled with water which allowed them to make more radical movements.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...