Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
"mistake: an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc."
Seems pretty cut and dry that drunk driving is a mistake.
The Consultation Paper, at page 48, briefly discusses the issue of linking and goes on to provide for a proposed amendment to existing copyright legislation to provide that the offering of a link on a page on the internet is not an infringement of copyright law. The underlying rationale set out by the Consultation Paper in this section is misconceived and we do not accept as being based on fact.
Section 6.3 of the Consultation Paper provides that Courts, (although it does not specify which Courts) are increasingly concluding that a link, by itself, should never be seen as a publication, reproduction or communication of the content to which it refers, even where that content is an infringement of copyright. The NNI takes serious exception to the statement included in the Consultation Paper that “the fact that links make access to that content straightforward does not change the reality that a link, by itself, is content neutral.” "
It is the view of NNI that a link to copyright material does constitute infringement of copyright, and would be so found by the Courts.
Just when you thought people couldn't get any stupider...
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
I think the Olympics committee did a good job revamping their appeals process to appear more legit and transparent.
Oh wait...
In yesterday's scenario, yes, I would have to agree. You've got a small, very crowded, dark environment mixed with tear gas, a shooter dressed in riot gear (when a lot of the crowd is dressed up for the movie), and mass panic. In this situation, it's hard to say anything short of a full SWAT team on site immediately would have really helped. That's not an argument for tighter gun control.
The notion of disarming a civilian population really does not sit well with me. There are plenty of situations where knowing not only how, but when to use deadly force is appropriate and will save more lives then simply waiting for Uncle Sam to come rescue you (see my above post). He's not always going to come around in a timely fashion.
In a world where criminals are willing to kill, tighter gun laws are not going to be much of a deterrent. Just look at how the "war on drugs" has been working out. If criminals want guns, they will have guns. I at least want to be on equal footing and not a severe disadvantage if there comes a time (rare that I hope it to be) where me being armed could have saved the lives of innocents.
Has any shooting like this been ended by a civilian carrying a gun? Any? Ever? I don't know.
Look at the massacre on UT campus in the 60s. Troubled sniper got up to the bell tower and started firing mostly indiscriminately (1 shot, 1 kill or he left you alone). Once people realized what was going on, many of the students who owned guns got them and started returning fire, severely limiting the number shots the sniper (Whitman) could take as he was forced to take cover. There was even an armed civilian in the group of 4 people who got to the bell tower and ended the killing spree.
Authorities have stated that the large number of armed civilians returning fire was instrumental in keeping Whitman from inflicting further harm
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
