I've see you read... why do you move your lips?
A camera on a stick is equally good at spotting thieves and vandals.
But not so effective without the aforementioned copper bits to supply the power.
What's the comparable scrap value of a drone?
Yup... he looks like an idiot, and so does he... why am I surrounded by such morons???
Scottie... beam me up!!
No - I cannot tell you which articles were not published in scientific journals because... [wait for it]... they weren't published. The ones that appeared in the journals (obviously) exceeded the minimum scientific threshold; those that did not, were not.
Yeah - there is probably a scientific bias... i.e., many of the articles which attempt to refute the human influence do not get published in scientific journals because they're not based on good science
Wow! How high does the charge get?
The charge can run into the ten's of dollars for hot dogs, doritos and whatever else you want for your monstrous case of munchies
but was it a good touch?
Grind them up and tell everyone they're horse meat...
I though Justin Beiber accounted for 50% of all of the network traffic
Yup - but the fact that only half the neurons are firing is compensated by twice the body odor
I'd play the left bower if I had it...
No... his sig is correct but only for very large values of 1
I was hoping the gun would have some intelligence(?!?) that would prevent it from shoot children or family members
Of course, that's impossible so it's neither smarter or safer
I don't believe I ever made any comments about a wild west shoot out... I do, on the other hand, find it hard to understand how anyone could think that an amateur with only a few hours of training is in any way capable of using their weapon safely in a situation where they are staring down a bomber or a fanatic with an automatic weapon. Adding more guns to the mix, IMHO, only makes the situation even more volatile.
I don't dispute that CCW holders have a low crime rate however, your assertion regarding weapons convictions does not appear to be valid... I recognize this is but one study, but results published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) seem to show that “in those rare instances when they committed crimesthey [CCW holders] were more likely to be convicted for serious weapons-related offenses.” - - i.e., they had a higher proportion of convictions for sexual offenses, weapons offenses, deadly conduct and offenses involving the intentional killing of a person than non-CHL holders.
Other than the sexual assaults, I'm not particularly surprised by this... if they commit a crime, it's more likely to involve a weapon because they have one with them.
Read the full article for more details: When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009
Objectives. We explored differences in criminal convictions between holders and nonholders of a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas.
Methods. The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) provides annual data on criminal convictions of holders and nonholders of CHLs. We used 2001 to 2009 DPS data to investigate the differences in the distribution of convictions for these 2 groups across 9 types of criminal offenses. We calculated z scores for the differences in the types of crimes for which CHL holders and nonholders were convicted.
Results. CHL holders were much less likely than nonlicensees to be convicted of crimes. Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.
Conclusions. Our results imply that expanding the settings in which concealed carry is permitted may increase the risk of specific types of crimes, some quite serious in those settings. These increased risks may be relatively small. Nonetheless, policymakers should consider these risks when contemplating reducing the scope of gun-free zones.
Have a good day.
Actually - yes - in general, a longer more rigorous training program is far more effective than one that you can complete in 30 min-2hrs... unless, of course, the subject matter is trivial. For some thing as serious as carrying a handgun in public... I'd personally prefer to see very high (and consistent) standards.
With respect to your other comments, there is a tenuous link - at best - between concealed carry legislation and a decline in violent crime rates... Even you state that the rates 'either stay the same or go down'. If conceal and carry was truly effective, I'd hope to see a significant reduction.
Your assertion with regards to the highest crime rates is completely unsubstantiated. Further, for every study that you can produce that shows any positive correlation, you can also find another which repudiates those results (and in many cases, those two reports will use the exact same data but use different factors to analyze the numbers)... lies, damned lies and statistics!
IMHO, the real nonsense is the belief that more guns somehow make things safer. But just as I am entitled to this opinion, I concede that you are entitled to yours.
BTW - I really liked this story at SatireWire: http://www.satirewire.com/content1/?p=4946