Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Where do I even start? (Score 1) 464

by wurble (#35233528) Attached to: Teenager Tries To Hire Hitman Via Facebook

Why are you so keen that innocent people are put at risk because some fuckwit woman is paranoid about the miniscule likelihood of someone posing a credible rape risk against her.

Shit, if she's that paranoid just wear a panty-girdle. That'll kill the passion quickly enough.

Who is possibly at risk just because a person chooses to carry a weapon for self defense? Do you think that possessing such a weapon will magically alter a person's personality so as to turn them into a homicidal maniac? The only person endangered by someone carrying a weapon for self defense is anyone looking to harm that person. As I said, you clearly live in a location where no one or almost no one legally carries a firearm except possibly police. I live in a location where no matter where I go, I encounter multiple people who are armed. For them it's just another thing they bring with them before leaving the house; like a coat or wallet. They bring their phone in case they get a call or need to make one. They bring a firearm in case they are attacked or need to defend someone else who is being attacked. Police cannot and will not help you if you are attacked. They are neither required nor expected to be there to intervene when needed. It is expected of citizens that they defend themselves when attacked. It is not expected that citizens roll over and allow themselves to be killed, maimed, raped, or kidnapped in the unlikely event that such an attempt is made.

Carrying a weapon isn't about paranoia any more than buying homeowners insurance or a fire extinguisher is. The likelihood that a fire is going to burn down my house or some other disaster happening that wrecks my home is pretty darn small. Under your logic, that means buying homeowners insurance is paranoia. Yet interestingly enough, mortgage companies find it significant enough (even though the chances are far less than single digit) that they require I have that insurance before being willing to give me my loan. It's not paranoia, it covering the bases. As is carrying a firearm. It's about situational awareness and emergency preparedness. Do you have fire extinguishers in your house? Yes? Why; are you some kind of paranoid nutcase who thinks a fire is going to break out any second? Do you walk around itching to use that fire extinguisher? Do you jump anytime you smell something funny and immediately start spraying the fire extinguisher everywhere?

I think instead of continually repeating arguments that have been proven false millions of times over, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position, look at the source of that reasoning, and expose yourself to areas outside of the bubble you grew up in. You may find that reality is not what you've been taught to believe in many areas.

Comment: Re:4x more likely,actually (Score 1) 464

by wurble (#35227806) Attached to: Teenager Tries To Hire Hitman Via Facebook
The study in question is borderline fraud. Nearly every single one of the "victims" in the study were themselves in the middle of criminal activity and did NOT own or carry the firearm legally. I'm sorry but a gang member carrying illegally killed by another gang member also carrying illegally is no basis for any kind of study on legal firearm ownership.

Comment: Re:What a shitbag... (Score 1) 464

by wurble (#35225540) Attached to: Teenager Tries To Hire Hitman Via Facebook

*citation needed*

Tell you what. Go do the fucking research yourself.

Compare: A - instances in which people are hurt by guns or knives they own B - instances in which a woman shot or knifed a man attempting to rape her

If you find A is in fact less than B, at that point (and only at that point) come back here and ask for a citation behind for my statement.

I did my research and provided citations which are completely contrary to your claims. The total estimated number of successful defense gun uses per year is in the hundreds of thousands to millions. The number of times a gun is used against its owner each year 3 digits. We're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape

Utterly fucking irrelevant. Most women do not get raped, and do not need to use a weapon to fight off a rapist, and do not attempt to use a weapon to fight off a rapist.

Carrying that weapon does however add an additional risk to them during those periods in their life that somebody is not attempting to rape them.

That's my point.

If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then you are saying that owning and carrying a gun severely increases the likelihood that you will be killed. This is simply total and utter hogwash. If I had to guess, I'd say in all likelihood you live in an area that either bans guns and other means of effective self defense entirely (e.g. most of Europe), or has such severe restrictions on self defense so as to create a defacto ban (e.g. New Jersey, NYC, etc.). I say this because, to put it bluntly, anti-gun brainwashing is rampant in such areas. I spent much of my life in New Jersey and was exposed to it extensively. I currently live in Pennsylvania. Over the past few years, my county sheriff has issued roughly 15,000 (License to Carry a Firearm). That's about 5% of the population. So one in 20 people I see is carrying a firearm. Police don't need an LTCF to carry on or off the clock so it's actually a little more. The local police tracker hasn't recorded a violent crime against an LTCF holder in years. Going further back, there hasn't been a violent crime against an LTCF holder that can in any way be linked to their weapon ever in my county. Ever. I'd say a sample size of 15,000 people who carry and a total pop of over 300,000 is fairly decent.

Also note that while 15,000 carry, MANY MANY more own guns since no license or registration of any kind is required to own a firearm in PA; only the standard background check. The only gun crimes on the police tracker are people who are prohibited from owning using guns acquired illegally. In the time I have lived here, there has not once been an instance of someone having their own gun used against them. Hundreds of thousands of people, many years, over 15,000 who carry guns legally, roughly 100,000 who own guns, and no instances of a gun being used against its owner.

Comment: Re:What a shitbag... (Score 2) 464

by wurble (#35224592) Attached to: Teenager Tries To Hire Hitman Via Facebook

A stun gun, pepper spray, or knife probably would have been a more sane approach

All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist.

*citation needed*

The whole "your weapon is more likely to be used against you" has been trotted out countless times and never once proven or even supported by a modicum of evidence from even a remotely respectable source.

In reality, a number of studies have been done on the topic and all have shown precisely the opposite of what you claim. Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape, victims who resisted with weapons were less likely to be raped than victims who either did not resist or resisted without weapons. The overall injury rate in general was lower and the likelihood of receiving an injury more severe than rape was lower. There is absolutely positively no evidence whatsoever that using a gun or other weapon for self protection may lead to the attacker taking the weapon and using it against the victim. It is a rare occurrence, and in such situations, the worst case scenario was that the outcome was the same as if the victim was unarmed in the first place.

a couple citations:
-Kleck and Sayles "Rape and Resistance" Social Problems May 1990.
-Kleck, Chapter 7 in Armed, by Kleck and Don B. Kates, Jr.


The whole "your weapon will be used against you" is an insidious myth that needs to be dispelled.

Comment: Re:What does that even mean? (Score 1) 506

by wurble (#35093650) Attached to: Universe 250+ Times Bigger Than What Is Observable
From my understanding, during the Big Bang, matter did not expand; spacetime did. Likewise, the matter in the universe is not expanding; the spacetime of the universe is expanding.

Think of it like a sheet of rubber. Let's say that sheet of rubber is the universe. Draw some dots (matter) on that sheet of rubber (the spacetime of the universe). Then stretch the sheet (spacetime). The dots (matter) get bigger, but not because the dots themselves are expanding, but because the sheet of rubber (spacetime) is.

Also, because it is spacetime itself expanding, it is not constrained by the speed of light. Spacetime itself can expand at any rate or speed. Matter itself however cannot accelerate to the speed of light or faster.
At least that's my understanding. I could of course be wrong.

Comment: Re:Don't worry big media, the fix is in (Score 5, Informative) 463

by wurble (#34994394) Attached to: Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General
I would agree with you if we didn't have a first past post system. If we had instant runoff or some other similar multi-vote system, then your theory could work. However in first past post, any third party serves only to act as a spoiler for the party closest to them. As such, libertarians tend to act as spoilers for the Republicans and Green tends to act as spoilers for the Democrats.

Comment: Re:Facts Fail (Score 1) 319

by wurble (#34410752) Attached to: FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21
The FTC governs anything that involves anti-competitive practices. The FCC govern communications. It is not the FCC's job to determine if a particular entity is engaging in anti-competitive practices, however it is not barred from doing so. The FTC however is given the responsibility of identifying such violators and curbing that kind of behavior. So while nothing is stopping the FCC from identifying the anti-competitive practices of a communications company, they don't have to. The FTC however has to. It is true, not all monopolies are anti-competitive. Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because there's simply only one agent willing to engage in that particular business in that particular region.

That's all beside the point though. He was talking about the fact that he has only one ISP available to him, and my comment still stands. It's either because no other company wants to come in there, or his local government is actively preventing (either directly or through taxes and fees which make it cost prohibitive) competitors from coming in there. Neither of these are the FCC's fault.

Comment: Re:Not even there's to legislate. (Score 1) 319

by wurble (#34406086) Attached to: FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21
You are confusing the regulation of the business itself with the regulation of their status as a monopoly. The FTC handles monopolies or rather it would be more appropriate to say it handles anti-trust law (not all anti-competitive behavior is from monopolies and not all monopolies are anti-competitive). The Bell System was a government sanctioned monopoly, and it's business was regulated by the FCC because it was a communications business. Had Bell System been a government sanctioned pharmaceutical monopoly, it would have been regulated by the FDA. It still would have had nothing to do with its monopoly status and everything to do with the type of business it dealt with. Furthermore, the government sanctioned the Bell System monopoly in 1913, whereas the FTC did not exist until 1914. So it's a poor example.

Comment: Re:Not even there's to legislate. (Score 4, Informative) 319

by wurble (#34404706) Attached to: FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21
The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.

Comment: Re:BASE16 (Score 1) 538

by wurble (#34067750) Attached to: US Objects To the Kilogram
I'm gonna take a modpoint hit for this probably but....

1/5 in binary is: 1/101 = 0.001100110011 ... repeating. That's not 1.

2/5 in binary is: 10/101 = 0.011001100110011 repeating. Also not 1.

3/5 in binary is: 11/101 = 0.1001100110011 repeating. Not 1.

4/5 in binary is: 100/101 = 0.11001100110011 repeating. Again, not 1

BUT! When you add 1/101 to 100/101 you get ... 0.11111 repeating, which actually equals 1. Which is correct. Nifty.

Comment: Re:Don't start planning that vacation just yet (Score 1) 245

by wurble (#33368216) Attached to: Richest Planetary System Discovered With 7 Planets
Depending on where you launch from, even conventional fission explosives wouldn't be too bad.

The absolute worst estimates had something like 1 or 2 people getting cancer for a single launch. I may sound callous, but seeing as how the result would be something capable of transporting thousands of people not just anywhere in the solar system, but even viably on a multi-generational trip of interstellar travel, I think a few lives is a small price to pay.

We sacrifice far more lives every day for things that are far more petty.

Comment: Re:Look to France (Score 1) 589

by wurble (#33109588) Attached to: Electric Car Subsidies As Handouts For the Rich
Why the need for a GPS tracker??

Just require a yearly inspection that records odometer reading. Last years km - this years km = total km traveled that year. Then get taxed based on that. The thing is, contribution to road maintenance isn't just mileage it's weight. If you are going to tax people based on the amount of damage they do to the road, then the tax rate per km should be influenced by the weight class of the vehicle.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

Working...