That raises a serious issue, the current Google Glasses are in no way properly sized for full-scale rabbit or tiger outfits.
That is true. Even if Slashdot would be capable of providing enough writing space for a ten-volume manuscript, it is still necessary to have a better command of the subject. I am not a professional in this particular area and don't have access to specific, statistically significant cases. My opinion is based on personal observations and on what I read. My opinion may be right or wrong, but I have it and it's mine. And you have yours.
BTW, if your friend is depressed, I don't think you should give him a map to the nearest tall building. You are free to persuade him - and he is free to listen to you or not to listen. Usually people do listen, especially those who don't have physical, material reasons for their decision. (That's what I read!)
Depression is kinda nasty in that it's hell to endure and depending on the causes really hard to get out of. People help but at the end of the day there's often not a lot you can do. Note, this is partially conjecture since I hadn't known the guy for a few years and the girl was a relatively new acquaintance at the time. That being said I had one reasonably close friend who went through a divorce and used me a lot for emotional support, she later confessed she considered suicide at the time so who knows what could have happened but she (and the other girl who survived her attempt) are definitely a lot happier now.
Regardless of why they stop they do stop, I suspect a lot of it is just plain maturity. As for the FBI list it's actually a worse example than you realize, almost all of them were listed for activities from more then a decade ago
All government entities were new at one point. Your statement would suggest that all all government entities are a bad idea.
The evidence is in; it's more true than not. You sit on the wrong side of this very obvious fence what with the IRS being used as a hammer by the Democrats.
if we accept that there is violence then it should follow that there will be one organization that is capable of more violence than any other.
That sounds like a fucking horrible idea. I'll end this with one word:
It should not follow or be desired that there be one group more able to deal violence than another, the best situation is balanced competing groups.
More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.
Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:
No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.
I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.
Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.
It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days?
Unconditionally YES. No man can be called free if he doesn't have this ultimate freedom - and the responsibility that comes with it.
People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
I believe in free will and self-determination. It is wise to keep dangerous temptations away from children - they don't know any better. But once a person becomes an adult, this restriction is lifted and he is free to do whatever he wants - as long as it doesn't clash with the same right of someone else. If he was wrong... too bad, he should have asked for an advice, or perhaps he should have thought about it a bit more. If someone, after all, suicides - respect his decision; he had his reasons; one day you may have yours. None of us live forever, as far as I know, and not everyone is excited about spending his last ten years of life in a bed, paralyzed, unable to even eat on his own, and over those ten years burning through the entire education fund that was being saved up for your grandchildren. When your time is up, it's up - deal with it. Many suicides are just an easy escape from a painful and terminal illness.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide but you seem to be arguing that not only should we not try to prevent it, but it should even be easier.
I know a guy who committed suicide and a girl who attempted suicide and no one is happy that he succeeded or that she failed (least of all her!). I understand if you think that guns are worth the risk, but can't you at least acknowledge that more people killing themselves is a bad thing??
If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world.
Do you think criminals commit home invasions just on some special days, like Santa Claus? They go out and burglarize residences until they are caught or killed. There are very few criminals who were successful for a while but then, before they were arrested, suddenly saw the light and became honest workers. Most soldier on until stopped. Criminals are not very smart. Smart people don't need to rob houses; we get paid big bucks for sitting in our chairs and pressing keys on the keyboard.
By the way, all criminals are always armed, as far as the victim is concerned. Not everyone carries a gun, but a crowbar will be plenty sufficient for an old man (that happened too, and more than once. Burglars don't like witnesses; dead men tell no tales.) I read that knife crime in UK is off the charts, and I can understand why - knives are cheap, silent, deadly, easy to make, and easy to dispose of. Gun crime is also rising as a side effect of that - criminals need guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives. It's not a mutual appreciation society, you know.
Actually I'm guessing the ones who don't get caught or killed stop on their own once they pass their mid-twenties. Either way I don't think criminals are all the hardened killers you imagine them to be, there are those who will constantly seek out the deadliest weapon they can find and be willing to use it, but I think most of society is on a bell curve, with criminals at the end of one tail, and the tail gets narrower and narrower with increasing levels of depravity until you actually start to get to the group you're talking about.
If someone wants to kill himself, he will do it eventually. And if someone doesn't want to kill himself, a gun will not hypnotize him into that. I, personally, don't care either way. A free man has power of life and death over his own body.
Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days? People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.
Either way you're bringing up scenarios that, while they may justify a gun, aren't that common. If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world. With strong gun control, even if a few tragic scenarios happen where someone could have really used a gun, I think a lot more tragic scenarios will have been avoided.
You don't have the fundamental right to own (or make) firearms.
You don't have the fundamental right to defend yourself.
What you have is the fundamental right to personal security.
From that you get a the derived right to defend yourself and the derived right to own firearms.
The place where gun we disagree is that I believe your derived right to own firearms infringes on my fundamental right to personal security.
No, actually, they don't give a shit. I could make myself a firearm, RIGHT NOW, and they're OK with that (so long as it doesn't infringe on certain things, like bore diameter, barrel length if it's a shotgun or pistol.. stuff you can own, but need some licenses (tax stamps) from the ATF to own).
For the price of a single 3D printer you could slam out dozens of zip guns. Don't even need any serious machining tools for that.
The whole 3D printed gun scare is just that. A scare. It's headlines. That is all.
I doubt most people have the technical expertise and equipment to make a zip gun, and for those who do it's probably not going to be a very effective gun.
With a 3D printer you don't need technical expertise, you just download the design and print, and before long they're probably going to be a lot more effective than the vast majority of zip guns.
That being said for the US I think it is just a scare for now since US gun control is already non-existent. The problem is if the US ever tries to get gun control then shutting off the supply is suddenly that much harder.
This is like arguing the Wright brothers' first airplane didn't change anything because it could only fly a few dozen feet.
That would only be the case if at the same time people were already flying twin engine cubs around.
People have been crafting guns at home for decades. The 3D printing aspect adds nothing to that truth.
What it does show is how easily people can be led into an irrational fear of technology.
What you don't seem to understand is that laws are meant to keep people safe and secure, not just punish people after the fact.
No, most laws are in fact meant to punish people before the fact.
The speed limit laws are there because some people can't drive well or maintain cars, so they punish those who can with lower speeds than they could drive in perfect safety.
Gun laws exist because people have to "do something" when criminals use guns, even though criminals don't purchase firearms legally and ignore laws. So everyday people who just want to buy and enjoy guns have to jump through pointless hoops and delays.
Public nudity laws exist because some people are prudes and some people don't have a reasonable sense of when clothes are appropriate. So the people who just want a good tan at the beach or in the backyard are punished.
Basically most laws are no different than the stupid warnings you see on every packaged product to not drink a bottle of sunscreen or not to insert canned beans up your anus. They are not really there to protect anything, they are just there because it made someone feel good to pretend they were helping.
If they like termites, where can I get some?
at some point 97% of geologists believed plate tectonics was false
at some point 97% of scientists didn't believe that dino's became birds or believed that they were just the slow and lumbering lizards like in 60's movies
almost every major scientific advance has been made by a few "rogue" scientists advocating rogue theories which at one time have been dismissed by most scientists in the field
So how do you know you're with the 3% of geologists who believed in plate tectonics and not the 3% who thought the moon was made of cheese?
Given all the 3% vs 97% incidents though history how often do you think the 3% of scientists were closer to the truth than the 97% as opposed to the other way around?
What do you know that the 97% don't know or don't understand?
It's big, heavy, and probably metal.
It's also useless, unless you are The Incredible Hulk. A man with a bat loses 100% against a man with a small pen knife. Intertia is not your friend. I know that it's possible to do fencing with heavy weapons, but it requires a very uncommon physique. This article could be useful, even though it talks about an edged weapon. A blunt weapon, like a bat, is far less useful in a battle.
It's not fencing, the intruder doesn't have a shield. I swing a bat the inertia is going somewhere, that somewhere is the intruder.
Oh, you said "kids?" Well then, imagine that the criminal is holding your daughter. With a handgun, from several yards away, you can hit him in the eye of your choice, and the hostage will be only slightly scared. Can you swing a heavy bat at the same criminal when he can always push your kid under the strike? When I said "overwhelming force," there is a reason for that. This is not a duel between two French aristocrats; it's not a game.
You're expecting the average person to shoot the criminal in the eye of their choice while the criminal has a close family member at gun point (and somehow do this before the criminal realizes it's easier to shoot the dude with the gun).
You've been watching too many movies.
And you think the bat as a weapon is impractical?!?!?
A strike in the head is often fatal - instantly, or a short time later. There are several medical reasons for that, and none of them are particularly pleasant to discuss.
Yeah, I know once someone tried inventing this sport called 'boxing' but in the first fight they tried the two dudes hit eachother in the head and just fell over dead and they gave it up.
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance.
It's worse pretty much everywhere else, except a handful of countries. But even in the UK the percentage of gun crimes is rising with every year. The situation in the USA is much worse still.
UK, way fewer guns way fewer murders.
Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Then please ask Obama to stop sending weapons to Mexican mafia. But regardless, Mexican narcocartels are rich enough to buy their full-auto weapons anywhere in the world. You simply cannot get most of these weapons in gun stores in the USA.
Wow... you just can't help yourself from taking a completely random shot at Obama.
As I said, guns are always easy to get for a criminal. He is already in that "sophisticated underworld," where drugs, weapons and everything else is available for a reasonable price. Do I know where to get a gun with removed s/n? No, I do not - and I have no need to know, and it's illegal to own one anyway. But criminals don't care about laws.
They are not always easy to get for criminals, in other countries criminals rarely have guns, they have guns in the US because it's really easy to get guns.
Every extra gun makes everyone else a little less safe.
There must be rivers of blood flowing down the streets of Swiss cities... and those poor American colonists, how did they survive, being 100% armed?
In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA.
Besides, Switzerland is a very small and fairly homogeneous country a peaceful culture and without a serious gang problem. If you have that kind of population there's not going to be much violence with or without guns.
By having a gun you're maybe making you and your family more safe
(more likely less safe with suicides and accidents)
Suicides are going to happen anyway; it's just less painful with a firearm. But if you insist, a cancer sufferer can throw himself from a roof of a tall building. Accidents with firearms are extremely rare; statistically they are not even a blip on a radar. Car accidents are 10,000 times more likely and more deadly, but we don't ban cars (yet.) Nothing in life is free, and Darwin clearly explained how his laws work. If you are inclined to do the "Hold my beer and watch this..." routine, do not be surprised that you hurt yourself in one way or another. IQ is required for survival, even if you just are crossing a street.
Suicides are more likely with guns, that's actually reasonably well established (and kinda obvious). And car aren't banned because they have a legitimate purpose besides killing things.
but you're most certainly making my family less safe.
My calculations show the exactly opposite effect. If a neighborhood is known to have guns, criminals will be less inclined to break into them because they are not sure who is at home and who is armed. This means that if your family has no guns, but your neighbor does, and that is known, you gain protection.
On the other hand, if a house or a neighborhood are known to have no guns, any gang of burglars can waltz in at any time. If there are homeowners, they can be beaten up or better killed, so that there are no witnesses. There is no danger. Therefore I can claim that you, by having no weapons, and by not opposing the criminals, are endangering everyone - and myself.
And one more thing. Let's for the moment imagine that *all* firearms disappeared from the planet. Perhaps the powder does not explode anymore, like in Amber. What will the criminals do? What will the police do? What will the peaceful, innocent citizens do? Would you want to live in such a world?
This, actually, was the case before firearms became common - from the first days of human history and until, say, 1700's. It was a sad time for anyone who is not a trained fighter. I will not waste space here on retelling the history of middle ages, but you get my drift. A Burgher is not safe in his shop, unless he surrounds himself with hired swordsmen. A family of a laborer is just a prey for dagger-wielding dwellers of the bad part of Ankh-Morpork. Murdered citizens were daily (or nightly) occurrence in large cities. The life belonged to young and strong. Do you approve that message?
Nice "calculations". I like how you're crediting the steady fall in violence in society to the advent of firearms.
Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.
There won't be any surprise in most cases of self-defense. If anyone is surprised, it would be the victim. The criminal is fully aware of everything because he initiated the situation.
Now about the bat. Make one for yourself out of packing foam, grab a friend and play that out. You will be defeated after the first swing, most likely.
Why is that? Because you cannot, probably, hold the bat in one hand, like medieval warriors held their swords. (There were two-handed swords too, but that's a different story.) A bat just doesn't have the right balance for one-handed operation. The medieval fighter held a shield in another hand. That part is essential. What happens when you grab the bat with both hands, take a swing - and miss, of course? YOU ARE EXPOSED to an instant knockout blow to your head, and you have nothing to defend against that blow because your both hands are holding the bat - and the bat is on trajectory away from the target. You don't even have a fellow soldier to the right of you, watching your now exposed front and right side. You are dead meat.
The nearest match to a bat among medieval weapons would be either a club, or a mace, or a Morgenstern. You do not know how to correctly wield those. Hardly anyone has that skill today. Huge inertia of these weapons requires special handling. Without this knowledge and skills you will lose, instantly.
It would be awfully arrogant to assume that one can just grab a piece of wood and become an invincible warrior - despite humanity's thousands of years of experience with exactly these weapons. Criminals know more about fighting with and without such weapons than any green-skinned programmer, fresh from a cubicle. You will not win. If you want to win, use overwhelming force, just once. Use the weapon that you are familiar with. (You are always welcome to train with a bat - but not on a baseball field. You'd have to train for combat.)
It's big, heavy, and probably metal.
Swing with two hands and an adrenaline rush and you don't risk missing and killing one of the kids (or going through the wall and killing a neighbour).
Besides it's a contrived situation. Given me and the criminal both having guns and me and the criminal both having a bat I'll opt for the bats every time.
Trayvon nearly killed a man??? At most he started to lay on a beating, assuming it would have escalated to murder is ludicrous
That was alleged, however little we know so far. The trial will expose everything that transpired, and then we will know for sure. Meanwhile, it does look like Trayvon was beating a man who was down. How much of head trauma are you willing to take before you depart into the better world?
We might find out in the trial. Besides, even if Trayvon was beating a man who was down that's a long way from murder, sure it might have eventually resulted in death, but most likely the worst case was some broken bones and a concussion.
I'd like to live in a world where two people can get in a fight without one of them ending up shot.
Criminals have guns because they're friggin everywhere because you don't have gun control. Get serious gun control and there's no guns for the criminals to get.
I was born and raised in a country with very strict gun controls. Even today a common man cannot have a handgun there. Still, criminals always had handguns. Where did they come from, one may ask?
Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance. Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.
Even if you take legal firearms away from everyone on the planet, manufactured firearms will be still with us. Do you want to go with bare hands and best intentions against a man with a homemade pistol? Whether you like it or not, weapons are part of humanity, for many reasons. You are free to refuse them to yourself and your family, but that has no effect on others. Your political decision may have your family injured or killed. Consider that.
Criminals don't come from another planet. They have guns because Americans say guns are acceptable, even cool, they have guns because they're really easy to get so you don't have to be part of some sophisticated underworld because they're floating around everywhere.
The more guns you have you'll get occasional cases of self defence where they saved a life. But you'll also get a bunch of offensive uses where the bad guy won, or suicides, or accidents. Every extra gun makes everyone else a little less safe. By having a gun you're maybe making you and your family more safe (more likely less safe with suicides and accidents), but you're most certainly making my family less safe.
At least the Millenials care about their fellow humans.
I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.
Oh sure they SAY they care. Actions? None at all. All efforts are token and vapid.
You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.