Android Army
Are you in the Android clan?
0 postsThe Verge
- 0 posts
- 119 comments
About Bucherm
Former sailor in the USN, now working for the Industrial side of the MIC
Forum Memberships
-
-
Microsoft Tribe
Let your Microsoft flag fly
0 posts -
Off-topic / chit-chat
The opposite of on-topic
0 posts -
The Lens
Calling all photo junkies
0 posts
Bucherm
On The Verge since Nov 12, 2011
-
Rec
Recommended Mr. Resetti's comment in This is the new Nexus: a first look at Samsung's Galaxy S4 with stock Android
-
Comment
At a thousand clams it should have included a viewfinder. The Fuji XE-1 has a viewfinder built in.
-
Comment
No
So, what’s your explanation for your implication that I wrote “civilian who thinks that a rifle with a few ammunition is capable of resisting military trained crew if necessary.”?
Because I don’t see how you could have gotten that from any of my posts.
I can’t ? Or I won’t ?
Pretty sure it’s “can’t”.
But I can give you that one.
Probably because you didn’t actually read the post, as indicated from your ludicrous implication that I think a armed civilian population can fight the military.
-
Comment
Are you kidding me ? You’re answering me like i didn’t read you, and like you don’t know how theverge comments made it really difficult to follow an ongoing chat.
Dude, it’s the first line of the second paragraph, that you responded too with “what is the Internet”?
Here we go:
It’s a Network of Networks, certainly.
-
Comment
But I can take a rifle in, and many lawmakers come to work with at least one gun.
Which Capitol? Not the United States Capitol, surely?
b) killing lots of people
Yeah, or, alternatively, like three.
It usually takes many bullets to kill someone, especially with a low-powered round like the .223 Remington.
-
Comment
That argument stumbles when you realize that having to wait 40 extra minutes on the train is NOT akin to being shot to death by a lunatic.
It is if the end goal of those committing suicide is attention seeking.
If Japan hadn’t been completely disarmed by the US at the end of WW2 and the Japanese government set on a course of pacifism, and kept the firearms restrictions imposed by the occupation authority in place, there would likely be many more frequent mass shootings in Japan than the US. But the disarmament of Japan occurred under extraordinary circumstances which won’t be repeatable in the US.
-
Rec
Recommended Andrew Moursund's comment in First 3D-printed gun fired on video, blueprint files available to download
-
Comment
So, second post of mine you haven’t read then? I had the definition right there.
-
Comment
So, you in summary:
- You aren’t going to own up to not reading the post
- And you can’t actually articulate the context, but you claim that the one provided isn’t sufficient.
- I had one line devoted to my “main example”, as you put it, but two paragraphs devoted to the Occupy movement. Your interpretation of “main” is an odd one.
-
Comment
But that’s what it is. A media.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It’s a Network of Networks, certainly. It’s a medium, possibly. Is it a “media”? No, it is not. It’s used to view media, be it TV shows or articles on tech blogs.
-
Comment
That wasn’t his argument.
-
Comment
I would like to see a gun that throws “dozens of Machetes a minute at hundreds of miles per hour”.
Here’s the deal; most firearms in the US are used for sporting purposes. That is, we go to the range and shoot at pieces of paper. I got a AR-15 for sentimental military reasons, not for self-defense.
Very Few Americans buy weapons like AR-15s for defensive purposes. AR-15s are expensive and big. You can’t go walking down main street with them concealed. They are largely what we call “range toys”. Because of the nature of who buys them, they aren’t used in crimes much(there are around 10 million AR-15s floating around in private hands in the US, with another 10 million miscellaneous “black rifles”). Handguns and shotguns are used.
So, it is very frustrating for a sport shooter to see people screaming for a ban of “evil black rifles” but don’t mention shotguns or handguns, which are used far more often. And even recommended by some anti-gun people(VP Joe Biden).
All that said, there are people who buy rifles like AR-15 for legitimate defensive reasons. While I was at A&M lo those many years ago(during the Clinton “Assault Weapons Ban”), my roommate’s family owned a lot of land in the Rio Grande Valley. Twice in Fall of 2000 they had home invasions with multiple individuals taking part. They spent a considerable amount of money getting “pre-ban” magazines and rifles for patrolling their property and defending the actual house.
-
Comment
Guns can’t hurt anyone either, only people using guns can.
-
Comment
You’re trying to justify the need for a civilian to have a weapon.
I don’t need to “justify the need” to anyone. It’s up to you to justify that I can’t have it.
In a free society it’s presumed that unless it’s explicitly banned, it’s permissible. Even Stalinist Russia had this line of thought.
And are you going to own up to not reading the post? What with you claiming that I wrote
a rifle with a few ammunition is capable of resisting military trained crew if necessary.
But probably not.
Furthermore, you example is out of context.
What “context” is there that you feel I’ve left out? I had more than one example, by the way, so you’ll have to be specific
-
Comment
I can unserstand where you stand now. You change what’s real definition to suit your definition.
You’re the one that called the Internet “a media”, so it’s pretty ballsy of you to claim that I’m the one changing definitions.
-
Comment
- It’s 16 years if it’s on public roadways. It’s perfectly legal to drive under 16 on private property, and it’s somewhat common in rural areas(specifically family farms).
- 18 is the minimum age to legally buy a long gun(that is, rifle or shotgun) in the US. 21 is the minimum age to buy a handgun in the US. So, don’t act as if the US doesn’t have restrictions on gun ownership.
-
Comment
So, question, did you even read that post? Because at no point did I claim that.
In fact, in the first paragraph I kinda claimed the opposite of that, but you’re so invested in “guns are bad” that you didn’t see it.
-
Comment
A gun is a tool. But, it’s mostly used to shoot at targets, at least in private hands.
Many guns are only usable for target shooting. For instance, this:
Is completely legal in what we think of as a “no-guns” country like the UK, because it’s so ineffective in killing people.
The Internet isn’t a “Media”, but people think that way because that’s how they use it in their daily life. But, you know, if common usage is the definition we’re going with, then privately owned firearms aren’t weapons, because they are mostly used to shoot at paper.
-
Comment
Have you seen me anywhere claiming otherwise?
What I have claimed is that it only modestly improves the chances of smuggling, as it doesn’t overcome the problems of bullets, gunpowder, and the passengers bum-rushing you the moment you pull out the gun.
-
Comment
Ultimately, “printable guns” is pretty straight forward. It becomes quite a bit harder to make plastic bullets(at least, ones that don’t disintegrate) and the chemicals that are used to make them go bang! that don’t trigger detectors at checkpoints.
-
Comment
So, deathrates don’t matter as long as individually they are limited to one person?
Interesting.
-
Comment
Plasma rifle in the 40w range.
-
Comment
A firearm is a tool, nothing more. The fact that we’re having this argument signifies that it means “different things” to different people. The Internet is ultimately nothing more than a medium to transmit data; it’s no more used to ruin the lives of other people by most users than private firearms are by most gun owners.
OP originally said that “it’s like spreading hate”, which the Internet does better. The first response to my response was “the Internet doesn’t kill people”…when it does do a pretty good job of ruining other peoples lives. Maybe Sunil Tripathi(as a example) killed himself because he had other problems, but it would be difficult to make the claim that being part of a Internet witch-hunt didn’t push him over the edge.
The argument is: If you want to ban weapons because they “kill people”, then you ought to ban alcohol as well. At least firearms provide a sporting use and are often used defensively, while the sole purpose of alcohol is for the sensation it creates. It’s the medium that causes a plurality of accidental homicides(Vehicular homicides outnumber firearm homicides in the States).
Most American citizens are killed by each other being drunk drivers, not by firearms…as you are trying to imply.
-
Comment
Only modestly so.
It doesn’t solve the problems of bullets, gunpowder, or the likelihood of being bum-rushed by passengers.
-
Comment
Are they going to make plastic bullets and undetectable gunpowder too?
-
Comment
The main purpose of most firearms in private hands is to shoot at pieces of paper. The US is awash in firearms, but the incredible vast majority of them are used to shoot at targets at the range, not bought to “harm people”.
They can be used to harm people, but you know what? So can the Internet.
And by the way, this is a response to the OP that said it was “like spreading hate”…which the Internet does a LOT more than guns. I find it interesting that the Internet is sacrosanct, but firearms aren’t.
-
Comment
What do you think mass shootings are?
A attention grabbing event by copycats. They(and the people who commit suicide in Japan), want to get peoples attention. I’d argue that many of the mass shootings in the US are elaborate suicides.
-
Comment
Local ganags aren’t technical.
Try working in a gun store in Indiana, and having some “gangsta” from Chicago coming in looking for magazines for a pistol he stole, then stumbling over pronouncing “Česká zbrojovka”.
We aren’t exactly talking about Bond villains here.
-
Comment
If you’re afraid of “bring gunned down by some random lunatic”, which is statistically very, very unlikely to happen…you must be terrified of being ran over by drunk drivers.
How do you leave your home, crippled by such fears?
-
Comment
Germany has literally millions of unregistered firearms floating around in it, and most of them are from when the Warsaw Pact came apart…so we aren’t talking SMLEs that someone didn’t report.
