Statistically, the person is much more likely to never be involved in any sort of tragedy with the weapon.
So, what you're saying is that statistically, well-regulated militias slaughtering school children isn't really a problem for you. Noted.
Not only do you seem to need a class in statistics, now you are conflating my response as to whether or not I care about children--classic troll behavior. Please go back under the bridge from which you came.
, I was simply referencing the utility of having a firearm which involves the love of a child, the sort of thing would not be possible if the grabbers had their way and rounded them all up
Just so we're clear, you are statistically more likely to use that gun of yours to kill a member of your family or yourself than you are to protect your 5 year-old child from a bear.
And it would seem that people who want to take guns away are statistically more likely to use statistics in a manner that doesn't reflect reality. Statistically, the person is much more likely to never be involved in any sort of tragedy with the weapon.
Spot on. This is nothing but a hack piece for the rest of the Slashdotters and all the other empirically challenged to drool over. Move along, nothing to see here.
Damn, I missed those riots! Can you please remind me where they were?
This post here makes the point of "Spreading Ignorance" brilliantly. Well done, sir!
I have a great job for all these people: they get free healthcare, free dental, housing and will even get promoted the first few times based on time served. Who knew the military was so good? As for the working conditions, though, at least these guys have a roof over their heads.
Any time someone responds to a study with the general statement
I knew a guy once who agreed completely with you. I do too.
One of the best comments I have read on this site in a long time.
Then buy a first/business class ticket.
From a 2006 Gallup poll:
"There are sharp partisan divisions in support for the program. Seventy-two percent of Republicans approve and 22% disapprove. Among Democrats, just 20% approve while 76% disapprove. Independents disapprove by a 51% to 42% margin."
I don't understand why anyone would mod this comment up--it pretty much embodies exactly why Slashdot has become nothing more than a site for shills and other political hacks. It is firm and righteous in its moral and intellectual superiority and assumes one would naturally choose one of the article's percentiles. Sorry, not so much. Give me a larger sample size, like 500,000 years, and explain every rise or fall in the temperature.
I had a similar experience with Vonage when I cancelled: they offered me the same service for $10/month; I was paying around $35, much greater than the ~$15 when I first signed up. I purchased Ooma and am very happy with the $3.67 I pay every month for local 911.
A recorded public statement is just as valid as what he said in front of a judge. In his first statement, he lied. By your logic, only statements given in front of a judge are valid--this is patently false.
Shame was not advocated, it was shown to be effective by the link I posted. Shame is a very good motivator in certain societies; one of the search results talks about just how effective it is in Japan, for example. You also see shame used by judges, on occasion, throughout the US: the convicted standing on a street corner wearing a sign that says "I am an/a XYZ..." Assuming my advocacy of shame as a motivator by me sharing a link is incorrect.
The president did not tell the truth about the affair: "Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you!"
Perhaps posting some relevant stats would be useful here; generalities, blatant accusations without proof, and incorrect facts serve little purpose except to confirm current parroted memes.
What are you, Catholic? We need to control people through guilt and shame? Really? That's a US view that's not seen elsewhere. And, having been to places where being on the doll/benefit isn't looked down on the way it still is in the US, the US has the worse system and still more "shame" to it. Yes, kids in school get picked on for having discount lunches. I've seen them beat up for it. And you want to make life harder on them because you feel there's insufficient "shame".
Shame has been shown to be one of the biggest motivators to shape behavior and it is much more powerful in the rest of the world, especially outside of the West. Scroll down to see about 30 results, there are plenty of papers and articles here.
Doesn't work for corporate executives. They show shame and guilt when ordered by their lawyers, and yet offend at a rate greater than any minority slums (they just have legal representation to get the charged dismissed/reduced)..
Isn't the 1% a pretty small and biased sample size?
Come live here in Pakistan for a little bit. Shit, go live in Europe for a bit. I am not talking visiting, I am talking living.
Come back to the US.
Make decision on what is the least evil you are dealing with.
Perspective is a beautiful thing, especially when all you describe are first world issues.
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
