FEC algorithms do not treat (an unknown number) of lost bits as a stream of 0 bits, since it can't know how many bits are lost.
FEC generally does not seek to recover lost data, only the proper state of flipped bits.
You mean Iain Banks.
If it was a bit more advanced I'd sign up in a heartbeat
Daniel Sterling received (and still receives) death threats. Does that mean he's right, and all of his critics are crazy?
So clearly the whole ideal of "the general public shouldn't have guns, only cops" doesn't make sense either.
Step 1) Have a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd
Step 2) Let me keep my firearms for sporting purposes.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) PROFIT
I'm not Arker, and his analysis hides all kinds of issues, especially considering not every gun out there is a
Bottom line, Armatix doesn't want you carrying their firearms for self defense for a reason. Somehow I don't think cops would take kindly to you telling them they have to replace all of their carry weapons with
What about people killed with their own firearms, or stolen firearms? Sure there are a few hundred. Should their lives simply be disregarded?
Yes. If they are outliers, and the numbers of lives saved dwarfs the statistical relevance of your outliers.
"If we can save just one life" is not a good basis for sound public policy making when it disregards broader consequences.
"Disabling shots" are not used intentionally, and for a reason. Stating that they are "used frequently" is an outright fabrication.
You watch too many movies and/or play too many video games.
This is exactly the point. The things that drive violent crime are not caused by increased firearm ownership rates. To that extent, you an expect any efforts to reduce firearm ownership rates to have no effect on violent crime.
What are the odds that somebody is going to run up to you while you are target shooting or hunting, wrest your firearm from you, and shoot you with it?
Non-critical firearms are generally stored locked and unloaded when there is a concern that a child or unauthorized person might get a hold of it.
I'm not sure I follow. I am saying I dislike all legislation that makes firearms less reliable, including mag disconnects and poorly designed drop safeties.
I don't think most LCIs (unless very poorly designed) affect reliability, aside from the fact that they add more (pointless, IMO) complexity to the slide.
In any case, the problem with roster legislation is that while their stated purpose is "safety", they are invariably expanded to include any tech that can be added, such that it is becomes harder and harder to import new models into the state. A perfect example is CA's roster laws: even firearms that are identical (except cosmetically) to rostered models have to be re-submitted for testing *and* are required to adhear to all new rostering requirements, even though other identical models (albiet older) are already on the roster.
At no point are any new features ever subject to any scrutiny with regards to safety.... for example, microstamping. Is a firearm that does not have microstamping less safe than one that does?
Now you could argue that to you, it doesn't matter. All you care about is that there are less firearms being sold in CA. That is fine. That is your opinion. But you cannot claim the roster is about the "safety" of individual firearms, only that it is having the desired effect of slowing importation of firearms into the state.
Cite, please? Any kind of evidence at all to back this up?
"[T]he adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." - SCOTUS DC v Heller