tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7364732100788337670..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Pseudonyms, Algorithms and Problems of Human ControlDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91733284146191828772011-08-07T19:30:10.239-07:002011-08-07T19:30:10.239-07:00There's an "Unofficial Google+ Recommende...There's an "Unofficial Google+ Recommended Users" making the rounds: http://www.recommendedusers.com/<br /><br />I've suggested that David Brin be added to the "Authors and Writers" category. If you are using G+ and would like to also recommend him, please send a message to <b>+shervin pishevar</b> to that effect. :)adastrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079484504006792763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53331753858067956742011-08-03T21:36:39.959-07:002011-08-03T21:36:39.959-07:00onward... And sorry TwinBeam. I still don't be...onward... And sorry TwinBeam. I still don't believe it.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75343433876108046212011-08-03T20:27:56.163-07:002011-08-03T20:27:56.163-07:00Super way cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLF...Super way cool!<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLF46JKkCNg<br /><br /><br />A very beautiful short film. Have a look!<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRMcPJrWm-g&feature=youtube_gdata_player<br /><br /><br />How brave are you?<br />http://news.yahoo.com/photos/the-edgewalk-at-toronto-s-cn-tower-1311798178-slideshow/reporter-leans-over-edge-catwalk-during-media-preview-photo-172040323.html<br /><br /><br />Some of these visions of tomorrow are as bad as the sarcastically-cynical writer of the article yells... and I think people will not want to touch all those touch screens other people have been touching. There are lots of other ways to do augmented reality. Still. dive into the article and play the videos! (All right, #4 #2 and #1 are pretty dumb. But #5 and #3 have real content. In fact, I invented #3 separately!)<br />http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-visions-future-from-experts-who-should-be-fired/<br /><br /><br />And another blog soonDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32471302834073009452011-08-03T20:26:53.780-07:002011-08-03T20:26:53.780-07:00Jeez... TwinBeam why are you so angry. DO you see...Jeez... TwinBeam why are you so angry. DO you see what you are doing? You are grasping at a few borderline anecdotes to try to prove THAT I CAN'T PROVE A PERFECT LACK OF EXAMPLES of concealed-carry bystanders blasting down mass shooters.<br /><br />Even if you were right. SO WHAT? So my perfect lack of any examples is spoiled by one or two that you assert (and I disagree) fit the model. So?<br /><br />They are still more rare than hens teeth.<br /><br />Again, nearly all such shooters are brought down by brave UNARMED bystanders! Heck, the story I am telling is far more glorious. More noble and inspiring.<br /><br />And far more true.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13748508146108764362011-08-03T18:30:03.782-07:002011-08-03T18:30:03.782-07:00Paul -
I disagree - Brin has added his own crite...Paul - <br /><br />I disagree - Brin has added his own criteria to create a strawman argument, allowing him to reject perfectly on-target cases. <br /><br />And most here are happy to let him get away with it because they more or less agree with his position. Exactly the sort of group-think / willful-blindness that they condemn so often here when they see it in tea partiers /republicans / conservatives.<br /><br />Two of my examples are on precisely on target to both crazy mass killings and concealed carry. <br /><br />The hero vice-principal was prevented from carrying concealed. He is precisely an example of the sort of person, in the sort of place, that pro-carry advocates commonly state should be allowed to carry concealed, and his case is a demonstration of their position. It is beyond absurd to reject its relevance to the issue.<br /><br />And the kid who drove off the home invading sociopaths was not the home owner. He was attending a party, and had a gun with him, concealed in his backpack. Once again, this is the sort of case that pro-carry advocates would use in defense of their position, and it is beyond a stretch of truth to claim it is not relevant.<br /><br />And I have no idea how he disregards the crazy bow-lady case, other than claiming he didn't see the link.<br /><br />Tacitus - you are giving Brin to big a pass. It is utterly hypocritical of him to disregard valid evidence against his case, and disingenuous to claim that the cases aren't precisely the sort of cases the pro-carry advocates would cite. How utterly ostrich-like.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5155204655069248492011-08-03T15:32:11.815-07:002011-08-03T15:32:11.815-07:00TwinBeam,
"But let's see what you actuall...TwinBeam,<br /><i>"But let's see what you actually claimed:"</i><br /><br />Pedantically picking over David's wording is pointless if you ignore the context of his argument. Advocates of CCW have been selling "Shall Issue" laws across the US using mass shootings as justification. Ie, "if more Americans had CCWs, these tragedies wouldn't happen."<br /><br />So when David says "Show me one example where..." it doesn't matter how he phrases it. The CCW advocates defined the terms of the debate. They weren't talking about home invasions, nor people keeping guns in cars. They were talking about public random mass shootings being stopping by random passersby carrying handguns in holsters or handbags under CCW laws. Those are the terms <i>they</i> used.<br /><br />I hope that explains why it might feel like you and David are on different pages. You are. He's talking about the arguments actually used by CCW advocates, you're not.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86880308885677539912011-08-03T14:28:20.556-07:002011-08-03T14:28:20.556-07:00I don't know what web page you're looking ...I don't know what web page you're looking at, but I provided 2 links in that post. <br /><br />And the second link was even better than the first - two employees with concealed carry permits shooting and driving off a crazy woman shooting people with arrows and threatening them with a gun. A perfect fit, as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />But now you're throwing out all cases of "self defense". So now the hero has to feel completely unthreatened, despite being close to a crazed shooter. Nice catch-22...<br /><br />And I guess it has to be in a public place - since "home invasion" automatically turns it into 'mere' self defense, no matter how irrationally sociopathic the attackers may be. Except in many public places where attacks happen, guns are banned - and yet it doesn't count if the hero has to run out to his car to get the gun he would otherwise have been carrying concealed. Another sweet catch-22.<br /><br />But let's see what you actually claimed:<br /><br />"There has never, ever been a single case of an American bystander, armed with a concealed-carry weapon, who leaped in and used that weapon to bring down a crazed mad shooter. All such mad shooters have been brought down either by police, or by suicide, or - most often - by UN-ARMED heroic bystanders, who charged the gunman while he was changing ammo."<br /><br />No mention that it can't be self defense or must be in a public place.<br /><br />No mention that vice principals or others in positions of petty authority do not count as "bystanders".<br /><br />And while you mention "concealed carry weapon", you really should choose whether that includes people who have permits but are not carrying only because they are law abiding - or only people carrying a concealed weapon illegally.<br /><br />You also claim these criteria were set by the right wing radio jocks. Funny, it seems a lot of criteria got added that they wouldn't consider relevant.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67737772872537015392011-08-03T13:53:50.624-07:002011-08-03T13:53:50.624-07:00(This is the bit I split out.)
And then I found t...(This is the bit I split out.)<br /><br />And then I found <i>this</i> poor bastard:<br /><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002975859_mallshooting06m.html" rel="nofollow">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002975859_mallshooting06m.html</a>Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76018622808867292922011-08-03T13:51:20.203-07:002011-08-03T13:51:20.203-07:00(Fifth attempt to post. Splitting the post this ti...(Fifth attempt to post. Splitting the post this time. Fuck Blogger.)<br /><br />TwinBeam,<br />Two of your three examples seem to completely miss the point: Promoters of concealed carry (CCW) laws used mass shooting to justify passing "Shall Issue" CCW laws in a vast number of US states.<br /><br />Only one of your three examples seems to relate to that. (And that was a woman with a bow and arrow and fake pistol, vs two CCW co-workers. And it still took police to bring her down.)<br /><br />I disagree with David's dismissal of the VP at the school shooting, "authority figure" doesn't remove his "bystander" status. But his other point is valid, your example had nothing to do with concealed carry.<br /><br />I did some googling, and I also had trouble finding examples of CCW permit-holders preventing mass shootings. Several off-duty cops, security guards, some gun-store clerks.<br /><br />I did find some vague references on pro-CCW blogs to cases where armed bystanders "pinned down" the shooter until police arrived, but couldn't find the actual cases.<br /><br />I also found a lot of pro-CCW blog posts (and comments) doing what Tacitus2 did: explain why CCW <i>doesn't</i> stop mass shootings.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90333525310111356972011-08-03T12:54:08.964-07:002011-08-03T12:54:08.964-07:00Its a question of costs and benefits. Tacitus lis...Its a question of costs and benefits. Tacitus list shows a definite benefit. <br /><br />A sample cost list would include:<br /><br />1. Celebratory Fire destroys property and occasionally kills people (Happened locally)<br />2. Children playing with guns rarely kill themselves or their friends.<br />3. Criminals have improved capacity to do harm.<br />3a. The crazy rampaging shooters are much more dangerous than they would be otherwise.<br /><br />-----------<br /><br />Now consider an alternative: No firearms.<br /><br />Benefits: None of the above.<br /><br />Costs:<br />1. Less capacity for Individual/Family Self Defense.<br />1a. Weaker resistance to foreign invasion or totalitarian government. (Extremely unlikely.)<br />2. The most capable Criminals (rare) would likely gain limited access anyway.<br /><br />------------<br /><br />Both of the above of undesirable. The Costs don't outweigh the benefits in my opinion. Ultimately we should use democratic principles to determine a policy for each nation. Now consider some alternatives to Allow/Disallow.<br /><br />David Brin's Limited Allow (Single shot riffles)<br /><br />Benefits:<br />1. Community Defense. (vs Foreign Invasion and Totalitarian Government)<br />2. Sports (Hunting/Target Shooting) is still possible.<br />3. Crazy People have reduced capacity to do Harm.<br />4. Criminals have reduced capacity to use firearms (as they can't be concealed and draw attention.)<br />5. Reduced chance of playing children shooting themselves. (It is hard for a child to point a riffle at themselves and pull the trigger. No so for friends though.)<br /><br />Costs:<br />1. Limited Individual/Family Self Defense.<br /><br />------------<br /><br />Non-lethal Weaponry (or Disallowed Lethal Self Defense)<br />Benefits:<br />1. Self/Individual Self Defense.<br />2. Crazy People have reduced capacity to do harm.<br />3. (Weak) Normal criminals have slightly reduced capacity. (They would still be able do their work, but there would be less death in those cases.)<br />4. Children wouldn't kill themselves with firearms.<br /><br />Costs:<br />1. Limited Community Defense.<br />2. Slightly Limited Sports (Reduced Hunting - You'd have to finish Animals with a Knife or other means, Normal target shooting.)<br /><br />---------<br /><br />You may be able to add things to the Benefits and Costs list of any of the above. I wasn't trying to make a complete list. Ultimately, we should be using Science to plan ahead for a solution that shifts Costs off the list and adds to Benefits.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />Uplift_Monkey I see nothing wrong with your desire to be a first res ponder. In fact, its admirable. But delegation is a good thing. Trusting Police, Firemen, our Military, and other Emergency Services to do their job isn't abandonment of responsibility.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03773076186367856200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85110811409581947862011-08-03T12:44:39.677-07:002011-08-03T12:44:39.677-07:00Tacitus2,
"2. it would be a rare event becaus...Tacitus2,<br /><i>"2. it would be a rare event because-thank God-mass shootings are extremely rare."</i><br /><br />Not really. While events on the scale of the Norway shooting are indeed rare, "lone nut shooting people in public" is not rare, particularly in the US.<br /><br />Studies seem to use a figure of 35 people killed in mass shootings in the US per year, but that can increase by ten times depending on the year. (A USAToday article after the Giffords shooting says 20 mass shootings per year, but gives no reference.)<br /><br />That's enough for a statistically significant sample. Certainly enough to find more than a few examples of concealed-carry heroes.<br /><br /><i>"3. it would be a very confusing and risky thing to attempt, high odds of being shot by police or other armed citizens."</i><br /><br />Indeed. The loon in the Norway shooting was wearing a police uniform. Who's game enough to make that call?<br /><br />But that's not the point. There can be a hundred perfectly good reasons for why concealed carriers don't stop shootings. The point is that concealed carry laws were sold in many US states by arguing that they can stop mass shootings. Clearly, they were lying.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29921457152479486082011-08-03T11:18:25.040-07:002011-08-03T11:18:25.040-07:00This may seem off topic at first, but bear with me...This may seem off topic at first, but bear with me… <br /><br />A number of years ago, a friend of mine was one of the first people on the scene of a two car, head-on collision. Both cars had people trapped in the front seats, but not severely injured. Unbeknownst to the bystanders, the driver of one vehicle was suicidal and purposely caused the crash after loading his car with gas cans. When the crash didn’t kill him and people tried to help him, he ignited his car – and the spreading gas quickly ignited the car he had run into. None of the bystanders had any tools to get the innocent passengers out of the other car. They had to stand there and listen to the screams as those people burned to death. A crowbar and sharp knife was likely all that was needed to save them from one of the worst ways to die. My friend has been haunted by that event ever since.<br /><br />After hearing the story, I decided to carry emergency equipment with me – on my person and in my car – because I do not want to live with the memory of people I wasn’t able to save. Fire extinguisher, gorilla bar, rope, welding gloves, axe, saw, first aid kit, blanket, and more tools have a permanent place in the trunk of my car, in addition to small items I carry with me. If I ever have cause to use them, it will have been worth carrying this extra weight around all these years – especially if it can save a life. <br /><br />Additionally, I am now certified in CPR/AED and emergency first aid. I believe it is the responsibility of every man, woman, and child to prepare for emergencies. And I believe that everyone has a moral imperative to protect each other. I pray that I am never called upon to use these tools and skills, but I am ready if needed.<br /><br />Consequently, I choose to be armed at all times with the very best weapons I can acquire, regardless of ever-changing legislation that can make a citizen into a criminal overnight. I don’t see it as a right – I consider it a responsibility. Just like the other tools I carry, it will be worth me carrying all these years if it is needed even once to defend against someone who wishes vengeance upon the world… though I pray I am never called upon to use it.<br /><br />The fire department is always late to the fire. Paramedics are not seated at your dinner table when dad has a heart attack. Police are rarely on hand when a crime is actually committed. As valuable a service as they provide, seconds are critical and minutes can be fatal. Life is too precious to leave to chance - or heaven forbid, response time. Each of us needs to be an empowered first-responder.<br /><br />uplift_monkeyUplift_Monkeyhttp://uplift-monkey.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88098302013564181102011-08-03T11:05:56.801-07:002011-08-03T11:05:56.801-07:00TwinBeam's one example (I didn't notice a ...TwinBeam's one example (I didn't notice a second) was a kid shooting a home invader. <br /><br /> Sure. I never claimed that guns were never used in self defense - that would be stupid!<br /><br />Indeed, as Tacitus says, I am friendlier to gun ownership than a lot of people initially expect. The bolt action rifle with small magazine should be protected constitutionally and kept sacred. (Note, a lone madman with such a weapon is very easily brought down. But a thousand neighbors, so armed, can stymie a tyrant.)<br /><br />I simply have never seen a whip-it-out by a bystander end a mass -crazed shooting. WHat I HAVE seen is plenty of tackles by unarmed much-braver bystanders.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85799320324885691502011-08-03T09:47:51.155-07:002011-08-03T09:47:51.155-07:00Cripes
I make an innocuous side comment on whethe...Cripes<br /><br />I make an innocuous side comment on whether the Norwegian shooting could have been less hideous with concealed carry laws and look at the fuss.<br /><br />This is a non issue, folks, find something more productive to argue.<br /><br />There is general agreement that:<br /><br />1. in theory an armed citizen might save the day.<br />2. it would be a rare event because-thank God-mass shootings are extremely rare.<br />3. it would be a very confusing and risky thing to attempt, high odds of being shot by police or other armed citizens.<br />4. There "might" be some bias against this happening because some of these nut cases specifically choose targets where in theory even in concealed carry states you cannot have a firearm. Schools for instance.<br /><br />Is this not sufficient? If you want to argue for private ownership of Uzis to prevent the next atrocity then I would respectfully suggest that there might be some other site more to your tastes.<br /><br />Go back and re-read Brin's essay on everyone having a "Kentucky rifle" over the mantlepiece.<br /><br />Yes, Brin cheats a little in debates. Big deal. Yes, his claims to be a Republican are disingeneous. But he is more pro-gun that I am, and I am kind of the token conservative in these parts.<br /><br />I really think the energies of all concerned could be better applied to the real issus of the day.<br /><br />TacitusTacitus2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7995536758394427212011-08-03T07:12:17.237-07:002011-08-03T07:12:17.237-07:00Transparency...misused
http://www.wired.com/threat...Transparency...misused<br />http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/<br />A Florida business,uh, person uses the state's transparency laws to find and post mugshots. For a fee, they can be removed. Murphy never sleeps.<br />"barave", separate syllables, get a concise "Callahan's" review.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85275840963627806502011-08-02T21:52:12.390-07:002011-08-02T21:52:12.390-07:00That was from me - apparently hit the magic combin...That was from me - apparently hit the magic combination of keys to send without clicking publish.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80523996373500396512011-08-02T21:51:05.647-07:002011-08-02T21:51:05.647-07:00Brin/Rewinn/Jonathan: Did you check out the last ...Brin/Rewinn/Jonathan: Did you check out the last two links I provided? Apparently not.<br /><br />But it won't matter, because you've already made up your minds. And you complain about "ostriches".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70023462901654675372011-08-02T21:29:50.545-07:002011-08-02T21:29:50.545-07:00TWinBeam I did not set the criteria. The radio joc...TWinBeam I did not set the criteria. The radio jocks did. The TOPIC is mass public shooters. The topic comes up When and BECAUSE mass shooting events come into the news. And that's when the radio guys trot out the Big Excuse. It didn't happen because of too many guns. It happened because of too few.<br /><br />I am not overly-narrowly defining. I am answering.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36458235043366337422011-08-02T18:45:32.593-07:002011-08-02T18:45:32.593-07:00Here's a bunch of links for people.
First, an...Here's a bunch of links for people.<br /><br />First, an act of domestic terrorism (fire bombing) which hasn't been reported... because it only happened to Planned Parenthood and who cares about them?<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/index.html<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/<br />planned_parenthood_terrorism/index.html<br /><br />Next (and this works with Dr. Brin's bit on human control), eight reasons why U.S. students don't protest in this day and age and what it says about America as a whole:<br /><br />http://www.alternet.org/story/151850/8_reasons_young_americans_don%27t_fight_back%3A_how_the_us_crushed_youth_resistance?page=entire<br /><br />http://www.alternet.org/story/151850/8_reasons_young_americans_<br />don%27t_fight_back%3A_how_the_us_crushed_youth_resistance?page=entire<br /><br />An article on how the Founding Fathers were <i>all for</i> national debts!<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/01/hogeland_debt_ceiling<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/<br />08/01/hogeland_debt_ceiling<br /><br />And finally, Matt Damon gives Libertarian Reporter a satisfying smackdown =^-^=<br /><br />http://gawker.com/5827002/matt-damon-gives-libertarian-reporter-a-satisfying-smackdown<br /><br />http://gawker.com/5827002/matt-damon-gives-<br />libertarian-reporter-a-satisfying-smackdown<br /><br />Oh, and here's ten stories about Uplifted Animals. Dr. Brin mentioned it on his Facebook page: <br /><br />http://io9.com/5826423/10-stories-about-uplifted-animals-who-gain-human-intelligence<br /><br />http://io9.com/5826423/10-stories-about-<br />uplifted-animals-who-gain-human-intelligence<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10523690420211528692011-08-02T16:17:35.263-07:002011-08-02T16:17:35.263-07:00@Twinbeam please - it's not a matter of being ...@Twinbeam please - it's not a matter of being "right" or "winning" some illusory internet contest. <br /><br />On the evidence, Dr Brin's statement is literally true as written. If you want to introduce some cases that don't match the statement, and argue they are somehow more relevant than the case he lays out, fine and dandy but that is a whole 'nother argument. Once you start expanding the range of cases, where do you stop?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29869643149810211932011-08-02T14:23:55.269-07:002011-08-02T14:23:55.269-07:00Twinbeam, a school vice-principal is not an "...Twinbeam, a school vice-principal is not an "innocent bystander" - he/she is someone charged with the safety of the students at the school. Admittedly, that's usually safety from the other students, but still...<br /><br />The vice-principal in this case wasn't carrying - his firearm was in his car. "Concealed carry" doesn't even enter into it.<br /><br />The criteria were for a single example of <i>an innocent bystander who used "concealed carry" to stop a massacre.</i> So far, we've been presented with an armed security guard, and a school official who actually had to go offsite to retrieve a weapon because he specifically <i>wasn't</i> carrying a concealed weapon. Still waiting for the criteria to be met. (I favor concealed-carry laws for totally different reasons...)Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5920416868347792782011-08-02T13:16:16.485-07:002011-08-02T13:16:16.485-07:00Brin - I guess you can always be right if you narr...Brin - I guess you can always be right if you narrow your conditions tightly enough to exclude every case presented to you.<br /><br />So now a vice principal is an "authority" - despite having no duties whatsoever connected with carrying a gun and use it to defend students, let alone chase down a criminal who has left the scene.<br /><br />And since guns are banned from so many public locations where deranged killers commonly like to strike, someone running off site to get the gun they might otherwise have been carrying, yeah, those can't count either. Ignore the kids who died because the VP had to leave to get his gun - that doesn't matter.<br /><br />And I suppose the shooter has to have been completely un-threatened but jumped in anyway, else it's merely self defense and that doesn't count. <br /><br />Or maybe it has to be a public place, not a private residence or business. And it doesn't count if they don't actually "get the kill" on the attacker - merely wounding them and driving them off doesn't count.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6219604.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6219604.html</a><br /><br />And nevermind the dozens of cases of people using concealed guns to defend themselves - it only counts if they use them to defend a random stranger.<br /><br />Yep, keep narrowing your criteria - you'll always be right. <br /><br />But in the end your won't be saying anything useful about concealed carry laws.TwinBeamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18567740197599764002011-08-02T13:04:04.090-07:002011-08-02T13:04:04.090-07:00Vote in NPR's top ten sf/fantasy titles poll!
...Vote in NPR's top ten sf/fantasy titles poll!<br /><br />http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138894873/vote-for-top-100-science-fiction-fantasy-titles<br /><br />http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138894873<br />then<br />/vote-for-top-100-science-fiction-fantasy-titlesDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50771991562842896122011-08-02T10:24:02.661-07:002011-08-02T10:24:02.661-07:00Re: Open primaries.
I've always liked this id...Re: Open primaries.<br /><br />I've always liked this idea. In 2000, you would have had Bush vs McCain. Pre-sold-his-soul McCain would have won.<br /><br />Or in 2008, the Bush legacy was so toxic, you would have had Obama vs Clinton. And I love the idea of your average Foxtard trying to decide whether to vote for a Negro secret-Muslim to keep <i>Her</i> out of office, or vote for <i>Her</i> to keep a Negro secret-Muslim out of office. For the Lulz alone, you need this system.<br /><br />But another possibility:<br /><br />Both Libertarian candidates and the Tea Party run within the Republican Party primaries. It would be interesting if you went in the opposite direction to open-primaries. Pre-primary factional votes, to choose the candidates for the primaries.<br /><br />You don't register as Republican, you register as Republican-sub-TeaParty.<br /><br />And registered Tea Party members would vote in a factional-primary for their candidate for the Republican primary, so would other factions, one from each registered faction standing in the main party primary.<br /><br />(Similarly in the Democrats. Rainbow Coalition, AIPAC, AFL-CIO, NALEO/UFW...)Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85035042126406425722011-08-02T09:43:27.588-07:002011-08-02T09:43:27.588-07:00Jacob,
"What we should be doing is researchin...Jacob,<br /><i>"What we should be doing is researching better non-lethal weaponry. Then you can have self defense without putting death in the hands of crazy people."</i><br /><br />Rapists love non-lethal-weapons. Makes their job a lot easier, no struggle, little or no screaming, and a good chance that the victim can't make an identification (or if rendered unconscious, may even lose that last bit of short-term memory.)<br /><br />Robert,<br /><i>"If I were to go after someone doing a mass shooting and managed to kill him, the laws of the U.S. would likely put me in jail despite the threat that this person posed to other people."</i><br /><br />Weird. Here in Australia we have strict anti-gun laws, hell even anti-knife laws. (And no death penalty, or similar eye-for-an-eye macho nonsense.) Yet, I've seen a number of cases where gun owners shot and killed escaping thieves (ie, shot them in the back), and while they have gone to court, every case ends with a jury aquittal.Paulnoreply@blogger.com