I like to tell a joke about a maxim I live by. It goes something like this, “Just when you think you’ve seen someone demonstrate the pinnacle of human stupidity, someone, somewhere, will invariably go out of their way to prove you wrong.” Consider how dumb the average person is, then realize that half the planet is not as smart as that hypothetical individual.
Luckily I have discovered a maxim that prevents a person from dwelling on this and contemplating unfriendly ways to deal with humanity.
Consider that just when you have seen the ultimate expression of selflessness, compassion, and caring, someone, somewhere, will invariably go out of their way to prove you wrong.
That is such a wonderful thing to consider.
I do not very often think I have much figured out, but this I can say I am proud to write.
10. More Guns Equal More Homicides
First, if you are going to make arguments for gun control (taking away rights), you HAVE to show CAUSAL not COROLLARY links to do it. This argument fails to do so. Second, if you are going to assert that two things are somehow related, your assertion (guns = homicide) must be correct. It is not. Here is an article linking to a Harvard case study that demonstrates as much.
9. More Guns Equal More Suicides
Again, no, you do not get to use corollary data. Show me something causal (you can not). The article above debunks this mythology. This assertion would have to be proven by showing the following; the suicides committed are committed with guns, there is no bias toward gender for method of suicide, and that the cases of suicide prove there was no other method available. Also, if this argument is true, we need to disarm police officers for their own safety.
8. The Public Supports (some) Gun Control
The public supported Prohibition. The public supported the “War on Drugs.” Do you really want to use “public support” as an argument?
Next, clearly define what you mean. The public may support a ban on automatic rifles. Does this mean that the public supports a ban on mythological labeled “assault” rifles. No.
Last, by adding the parentheses (some) you clearly show you have no clearly definable position. The goal here is to include any opinion into the camp of “everyone wants gun control.” You get to move the goal post everywhere with this one…
7. Most Massacres Utilize Legal Weapons
To make this relevant to a gun control argument you would have to assert (with causal links of course) the most massacres use guns. Remember in doing this you have to eliminate any time there is only one victim, any defensive use of a gun, AND discriminate use of a gun. Then you will have created a pool of incidence that you are using a tautology to argue. Expanded argument: More than 50% of people killed brutally and indiscriminately died because of a gun that existed legally. This argument may have been questioning the legal USE of a gun. If a gun was LEGALLY used to kill more than one person, there is still no argument against it.
6. Banning guns saves lives
Having guns saves lives too.
“Unlike Congress, the Australian Parliament likes action. In 1996, a mass shooter killed thirty-five people in Port Arthur in a massacre so pointlessly depressing I’m not going to mention a single other detail. Two weeks later, the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, launched perhaps the most aggressive clamp-down on gun ownership in history. Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words, people didn’t switch to machetes or poison so much as they stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well, Australia’s gone all the way from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.”
Violent crime went up.
5. The second amendment
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Victim causation nuts like to focus on the militia part of this term even quoting the Supreme court: “The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.”
The definition of militia is “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.”
If the civil population has no arms, how in the HELL can it supplement anything? “Okay, all you unarmed civilians run that way and draw their fire while those of us with guns shoot back…”
Next, if it is to supplement an army, how can it do so without at least the same level of armament an army would use?
4. Assault Weapons Aren’t “Sport”
Clearly define what an assault weapon is. Do so without using cosmetics in your definition. Reasoning: a toy that can in no way fire a bullet can look exactly like any gun. A toy is not meant to be a weapon.
There is no constant definition of “assault weapon.” The moving goal post prevents a real debate on this.
3. We Have Too Many Already
As defined by? Who gets to make the determination? And what part of “shall not be infringed” are you thinking you should infringe to make this work?
2. Arming Everyone Won’t Help
Not according to the Supreme Court. They seem to think that people are responsible for their own protection.
1. Assault Weapons Won’t Save You
This argument is based on the mistaken belief that, “the Federal Government would have the entire US Army at its disposal.” Having been in the Army let me help you out with this one. BULL FUCKING SHIT! The U.S. Army comprises…. residence of the U.S. They are not trained to accept any order given. A soldiers training includes understanding a lawful order. There is no lawful order to:
Disarm the American public.
Conduct warrantless searches.
Detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants.”
Impose martial law or a “state of emergency.”
Fact: Each individual in this country is responsible for their own protection.
Fact: Guns provide protection.
From an article written by SOMINI SENGUPTA of the New York Times:
Surveillance of students’ online speech, he said, can be cumbersome and confusing. “Is this something that a student has the right to do, or is this something that flies against the rules and regulations of a district?”
Okay, I’ll bite, Who is responsible for raising a child? The government agency or the parent? If you side with the government agency, are they culpable when they fail the child, or are you still going to blame the parents?
I stated my concerns about iOS7 here. I found the following three bugs in my first four hours of use. One is a game stopper, the other two are easy to work around.
I am guessing this picture shows a broken call of some kind. It is likely that the way this application did logins either changed or was deprecated in iOS7. I present this to show a broken app. Is it necessarily the FAULT of iOS? When I upgrade and lose functionality I do not focus on fault, but rather, why is this broken?
I was using two fingers swiping up to close multiple apps at a time. Several times I had this happen. The preview flew off the screen, but the app was still running. It happened with multiple apps, and sometimes did not happen to an app it had happened to previously.
Notice in the bottom right hand corner the directory has two striped background colors instead of the gradients used elsewhere. All three of these bugs happened on an iPad mini and an iPhone5.
Okay, I admit it. I am not a UI designer. I do not know the cool things, minimalism, flat, skeumorphism… I just have one question. In iOS7 they show all the apps that are running one way. If I look to see what pages are open in Safari on iOS7, this is demonstrated another way entirely. Is there a good reason to do that? I know one is web pages and the other is applications, but why do I need one to look like a stack of magazines at an angle and the other to look like a bunch of cards on a table that I swipe through. I do not get why I need two different representations. Why not just settle on one? See, I really do not understand UI design….
I am sitting on my deck this morning. I look east into a small beautiful backyard. The bright blue sky offers a perfect contrast to the green grass and tree leaves. A red fence provides the edges of the box that I call mine. A squirrel has taken residence in the area tormenting the dogs as it runs across the top of the fence. It seems to stop and stick its tongue out while the dogs bark madly to scare it off. A gentle breeze relaxes and adds a tint of cool, just enough to make the glowing warmth of spring comfortable. There is a small pile of wood dried by winter off to one side of the yard. I have a knife and an axe, and I consider making a fire bow.
My daughter wanders around with bubbles. Those tiny magic globes that come into existence from no where, and return just as quickly. Sometimes the wind picks up a few moving them out of site before they pop. My daughter smiles, not with her lips, but with her whole being. The simple wonder enamors her. On rare occasion she offers the nearly religious experience of blowing to cause the bubbles to appear. “Daddy’s turn.”
The dogs act as dutiful baby sitters. They tolerate the “petting” that a two-year old uses to forcefully communicate affection. Better dogs there never will be. The German Shepherd/Sharpeis are gentle, caring, and protective. For the first time in… time. Now there is an interesting word. I would say today the clocks are running slow. At least, I hope they are. I could use a few days of this. No hurry, no racing about, no screaming need for technology.
You likely expect a picture. You may hope that I can show you what this day feels like. If what I have written did not provide a picture, then you have not paid attention. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I say one thousand well chosen words are better than the movie.
Received this axe in the mail on May 7th. Germantown tools closed up shop in the late 1890’s. I do not believe this axe head is that old. So I am beginning the process of learning about it. My journey starts here.