|
|
> When a city or state enacts draconian gun control laws - crime goes up
Yes, that'll be because they're now arresting people for carrying Guns as well as all the other normal things they used to get arrested for.
It's a hypothetical situation.
But not difficult to find news reports of similar shootings, jealous husbands/lovers, accidental shootings, mistaken identity.
For example, death facilitated by "law abiding citizens" with guns.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083886/Robin-Heidt-Wife-affair-brother-law-drove-gun-family-speaks-time.html
http://www.durhamregion.com/news/crime/article/1610791--documentary-probes-accidental-shooting-of-former-oshawa-teen
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/20/homeowner-shoots-and-kills-teen-who-entered-wrong-home-after-party/
http://www.spectacle.org/996/who.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270105/Phillip-Walker-Sailers-69-accused-killing-Rodrigo-Abad-Diaz-22-pulled-driveway-house.html
http://theadvocate.com/home/4109368-125/death-of-exchange-student-painful
I suppose, in the end it depends if you consider those deaths "for the greater good" - an acceptable consequence of liberal gun control.
If you had a hypothetical gun free zone where it was not possible for a gun to exist, then in that hypothetical gun free zone there would be no "murder" caused by guns.
What you've done, is you've taken "murder", in any of its forms, and said that "murder" happens if there are guns or not, therefore guns should not be regulated.
Lets go for another hypothetical situation, Person A has a legally held gun, and finds his wife has been having an affair with Person B. Person A takes his gun and starts waving it at Person B. Person B has a legally held gun, and shoots at Person A as he was in fear of his life. Person C, also has a legally held gun, sees Person B shoot at Person A, and shoots Person B. Person A sees someone else with a gun and shoots person C, and they all die of gunshot wounds. If none of these people had guns of any sort, no one would be dead by guns.
If an individual had a gun, it would neither make that person more or less likely to be violent, but it would ensure that violence of any kind involving that person is more likely to involve a gun.
Except for Google
Or advertising agencies
Or, well, anyone who wants to use a picture/photo for free
A little light reading suggests the system was broken before that, the extra funding was supposed to address the lack of achievement of poorer students. That lack of achievement was already there, not caused by the federal funding grants.
I'm just proposing an alternative view to the comment that education would be better without any federal involvement.
I think blaming the federal government for how local schools spend money or teach is probably not fair, when someone else suggested that 90% of the education budget is at statelocal level (backed up by your wiki article) - possibly the reason the federal government got involved was that the individual states were not achieving what they should.
Yes, when most of the rest of the world (Asia, Africa, South America) were not educating anyone. So you could argue, without federal intervention, you'd be likely even worse off.
Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too
> If you want to guarantee a system keeps operating and maintains data integrity when a single computer fails, you need at least another three computers that are still running with no failures. There is a mathematical proof for this.
Can you find this mathematical proof? It'd be most useful.
> shouldn't have any kids!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_III_and_his_Grandsons
Except this guy, with his grandchildren. One who is a Bishop. Appointed by him.
Yes, you're right, I didn't address how to break the laws of physics, other than you shouldn't be going at such a speed that makes it impossible for you to stop on a light change.
I think you're flailing a little, you're the one that is in danger of running (hypothetical) red lights outside your house when you've not left enough room to stop correctly, indeed you've said it yourself "speed safe for the conditions", if you run a red as you're going too fast then you're not doing that.
I don't drive in the US, in the UK "AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident", so unless you're going to cause an accident, you have to stop on amber.
So, yes in the UK, you'd get a ticket - and indeed I know people who have been pulled up for crossing on an amber lights.
So, I think best to take it as a differing driving systems.
Of course in the US the car is king, but the UK Highways code suggests that you :
"do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit"
"take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations
"where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging"
"be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary"
https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158
I think that pretty much covers everyone who is complaining about amber lights, indeed if a traffic light is green, there is only one way the light is going to go - and it's not to blue.
Nicked from Wikipedia
All seems rather sensible, I thought.
I'd like to quote from "The Greatest Britain"
"It was formerly supposed that the workings of the laws of supply and demand would in the regular and natural course of events, and by a steady progression, eliminate that evil, and achieve adequate minimum standards. Modern opinion has found it necessary greatly to refine upon these broad generalisations of the truth, and the first clear division that we make to-day in questions of wages, is that between a healthy and unhealthy condition of bargaining.
Where, as in the great staple trades of this country, you have powerful organisations on both sides, with responsible leaders able to bind their constituents to their decisions, conjoined with automatic scales, or arbitration or conciliation in case of a deadlock, there you have a healthy condition of bargaining, which increases the competitive power of the industry, which continually weaves more closely together the fortunes of Capital and Labour, and which enforces a constant progression in the standards of living and of productive power. But where, as in what we call "Sweated trades," you have no organisation at all on either side, no parity of bargaining between employers and employed, where the good employer is continually undercut by the bad, and the bad again by the worse; where the worker whose whole livelihood depends on the trade is undercut by the worker to whom it is only a second string; where the feebleness and ignorance of the workers and their isolation from each other render them an easy prey to the tyranny of bad masters, and middlemen one step above them upon the lowest rungs of the ladder, and themselves held in the grip of the same relentless forces--there you have a condition not of progress but of progressive degeneration. And just as in the former case the upward tendency will be constant if it is not interrupted by external power, so in the latter case the demoralisation will continue in a squalid welter for periods which are quite indefinite so far as our brief lives are concerned." Churchill, W (1909)
"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." --Frank Zappa